Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Lisbon Agenda

Mark Hendrick: If he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the Lisbon agenda.

Gordon Brown: Britain is at or near the best for employment and enterprise. The report on science that we are publishing today shows the progress that we are making on research and development. Europe accounts for 50 per cent. of British imports and exports. To speed up the pace of economic reform across Europe, we are proposing that Governments and business join together in a Europe-wide business forum.

Mark Hendrick: My right hon. Friend presides over one of the most dynamic economies in the world, with record levels of foreign direct investment, according to the United Nations, and massive levels of employment, according to the G7 nations. In an age of globalisation and cut-throat competition, what is he doing to ensure that our European Union partners go the same way as we have?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a broad interest in these matters. He is absolutely right about our economic performance, given that the shadow Chancellor has congratulated us on establishing economic credibility and on our success in macro-economic policy. On employment, despite the recent difficulties, the claimant count in Britain is 3 per cent. and the labour force survey figure is 5 per cent. Our unemployment rate is about half that of the mainland European economies. I believe that we can continue to expand, even in a situation of massive global competition. Our aim is full employment for this country, and I hope that all parties will subscribe to that.

John Redwood: Will the Chancellor try to speed up progress on the famous Lisbon agenda, particularly deregulation, given that under his stewardship the Scottish economy has grown at only one quarter of the pace of the Irish economy? Can he learn from the Irish economy, which gets less in subsidy from the EU than Scotland gets from England?

Gordon Brown: I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman what he said in his own report on the British economy:
	"What are the most attractive locations today?...The lure of the USA...Of China...Of India...Of the UK".
	We have that allure for investors because we have a low-tax economy, stability, and an open competition policy. When the right hon. Gentleman chairs the Conservative party review on these matters, perhaps he can sort out its policy on Europe, which is in complete disarray according to the e-mails of the Leader of the Opposition's Parliamentary Private Secretary. Perhaps he can also say that our economic record has brought stability, whereas under the Government in which he served there was instability.

Si�n Simon: Does the Chancellor intend to continue working with colleagues across Europe to promote employment and stability under the Lisbon agenda, or does he have any plans to isolate us from Europe and common sense by joining up with neo-fascists, weirdos and maniacs from all over the place?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is right. It was Conservative Members who talked about the cranks, fanatics and extremists that they might have to join if they were part of the opposite grouping to the European People's party. The choice is between a pro-European and pro-business agenda and an anti-European and anti-business agenda. The tragedy is that the Conservatives are not only anti-European, but are about doing what is damaging to business. If they will not believe what I have said, perhaps the Swayne e-mails

Hon. Members: Order!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given the Chancellor some elbow room, but he is stretching a point.

Vincent Cable: Is not the Chancellor becoming a little concerned that Britain's good performance in employment and unemployment is being undermined by the fact that unemployment has risen for 15 of the past 16 months and is at its highest point for six years? Does he have any specific initiative to make in respect of Britain's mortgage lenders, given that unemployment is translating into rapidly rising repossessions because of the absence of any system of safety nets for people in mortgage arrears?

Gordon Brown: It is difficult to take lectures from the Liberals when they have just published their tax and spending plans, which show a 20 billion spending hole that would lead to damage to the economy. As for employment, I would have thought that he would give us a balanced account. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe. At the same time, we have moved closer and faster to full employment under this Government than under any Government for 50 years.
	On interest rates, while I recognise that house prices have risen, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that interest rates are among the lowest that they have ever been. In fact, for mortgage holders, interest rates have averaged half under the Labour Government of what they were under the Conservative Government. It is perhaps about time that the Liberals acknowledged that.

John McFall: The Chancellor will agree that the Lisbon agenda must be founded on the rock of economic stability. The Treasury Committee's report, Globalisation: the role of the IMF suggests that there is significant risk to the UK in Europe if there are global imbalances and disorderly unwinding in the global community. Given that, will my right hon. Friend ensure that when he goes to Singapore in September, he will promote crisis prevention rather than crisis resolution so that economic stability is best served in the UK, Europe and the global community?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The report is an important document, which points to the changing role of the IMF and, indeed, other international institutions. The emphasis must now be on crisis prevention rather than crisis resolution, the transparency that is necessary for countries to report what is happening in their fiscal and monetary policies and, therefore, for programmes of proper surveillance, whereby we can examine at first hand what is happening not only to countries' fiscal and monetary but their corporate positions. That is why the proposal for extending article IV reports to cover those issues, and for an international form of surveillance as well as national reports, is important. I applaud the report. Perhaps we should also have surveillance of Opposition parties' proposals.

George Osborne: The Labour Member on the European convention, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), said recently that economic policy throughout Europe is moving backwards. She singled out one country for special criticismBritain. She said:
	The seeds of future stagnation have been sown. We have excessive public spending, rising taxes and excessive micro-management.
	I know that the Chancellor is keen to get on with the parliamentary Labour party at the moment. What does he have to say to his hon. Friend?

Gordon Brown: I just repeat what the hon. Gentleman says outside the House but not in it. He supported us and congratulated us on our successful macro-economic policy.  [Interruption.] What is the country to make of a shadow Chancellor who, inside the House, criticises us for our economic policy but outside, when talking to business, to try to show that he has learned from his mistakes under a previous Conservative Government, refers to
	Labour's success on macroeconomic policy
	and says that Labour has been successful in establishing economic credibility. He also said:
	Labour have improved the macro-economic management of the UK economy.
	If he is not prepared to say those things in the House but says them outside, the country will have to draw its own conclusions.
	As for European issues, perhaps he should read the e-mails of the Leader of the Opposition's parliamentary private secretary. [Hon. Members: Oh!] Oh yesthey are precisely about the Conservative party's European policy, which, according to the e-mails, is the subject of dismay, depression, frustration and impotence.

George Osborne: Before the Chancellor talks about friends in Europe, he should read the comments of the President of the European Commission, who says that, every time the Chancellor turns up in Brussels, it is like a vegetarian visiting a beef eaters' club.
	If the Chancellor does not agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, perhaps he will agree with the Prime Minister's former chief economic adviser, who wrote recently in the  Financial Times that
	higher taxes and intrusive micro-management are gradually taking their toll.
	Or perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is simply no longer interested in the mundane issues of the economy because his whole attitude is, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) put it recently, Please, please, let me take over. I'll do anything you say.

Gordon Brown: I can only quote back his own words to the shadow Chancellor and cite what has happened in his constituency, where unemployment has fallen by 54 per cent. under a Labour Government. Only a few days ago, he said:
	I worked for John Major when we lost the 1997 election, was William Hague's political adviser when we lost the election after that. That doesn't say much for the quality of my advice.

Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Lisbon agenda is about real issues such as inflation, employment and getting money for public services? Will he scour the agenda next time to see whether it has any references to saying no to chocolate oranges and padded bras, or hugging a hoodie selling dodgy goods? I do not think that he will find them because they are all part of the Tories' agenda.

Gordon Brown: The issue is whether one believes in stunts or substance in policy. The substance in policy is the lowest unemployment for 30 years, the lowest interest rates for 40 years and the lowest inflation rate in a generation. No Conservative Government have been able to boast of such a record. The shadow Chancellor would do better to go back to the drawing board with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and examine the Conservatives' economic policy.

G8 Summit

David Anderson: What progress he expects to be made at the forthcoming G8 meeting in St. Petersburg towards agreement on education provision for every child; and if he will make a statement.

Gordon Brown: We call on all G8 and other countries to join us, and the fast-track initiative of the World Bank, in 10-year plans to expand education so that, instead of the situation today in which 100 million children are denied schooling, all children throughout the world will have the right to education.

David Anderson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Yesterday, 10 children from St. Joseph's primary school, in my constituency, met the Prime Minister and pressed him on this very issue. One read a poem, which included the following words:
	Education is the key,
	Look how it's helped you and me,
	Help them to feel safe and secure,
	Knowledge unlocks the door for the poor.
	How can my right hon. Friend help to ensure that those children's words and efforts are not in vain, especially if other countries renege on their commitments?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has led a campaign in his constituency, and I hope that there are many Members in all parts of the House who are able work with schoolchildren and teachers in their constituencies, so that the education for all initiative gains support throughout the country, and schools in Britain can link up with schools in Africa. Two thirds of the 100 million children who do not receive education are girls. Many are at school, but the pupil:teacher ratios are anything from 100:1 to 150:1. Britain has set aside 8.5 billion over the next 10 yearsthe Secretary of State for International Development will make a statement later today on future plansso that we can lead the way in providing education for all. That is the most cost-effective and beneficial investment that the world could ever make, and I hope that all Members can join together to support it.

David Laws: This is clearly an ambitious and bold project that we Liberal Democrats would wish to support, but it will clearly also be very expensive. In light of that, and of the views of the Office of Government Commerce, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider redirecting the savings made by not proceeding with the identity card scheme into this area?

Gordon Brown: One of the benefits of running a successful economy, which the Liberal party might not understand, is that it is possible to spend money on both international development and domestic policy. We have proved over the past nine years that it is possible to expand public expenditure on policing and the Home Office, education and health and social services generally, and still to double the amount of money in real terms going into international development. I hope that the Liberal party will review its own spending plans, so that it can prove to the public that it, too, could be trusted with the spending of money.

Tom Clarke: Would my right hon. Friend care to develop his thinking on the education for all programmes and the strategies of African countries, particularly in view of the need for them to be fully funded and consistent with paragraph 18(a) of the Gleneagles communiqu?

Gordon Brown: I am notI do not have it to handaware of what the (a) part of paragraph 18 says, but the whole House will thank my right hon. Friend for his work on the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill, which will require the Government to report regularly to Parliament on the successes in, and the challenges of, meeting the international development aid targets. His work has been welcomed by all non-governmental organisations and pressure groups not only in this country, but around the world.
	Yes, we will keep to the Gleneagles agreement on these issues, and at the same time we will continue to expand spending not only on education, but on health. The vaccination initiative introduced in the past few months, providing 5 billion extra for vaccination, will ensure that over the next 20 years millions of children will be able to survive, where previously they would have died. This initiative involves both education and health, and we are showing that this Government are properly funding it.

Graham Stuart: For education programmes to be worth while, we also need a decent environment for children. Can the Chancellor explain why he was unable to address the G8-plus-five legislators' dialogue last weekend, which was very disappointed not to hear from him? Can he also tell us of any progress that has been made with the climate change fund, which he announced with many headlines at the time of World Bank's spring meetings in Washington?

Gordon Brown: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees about the need for action on climate change, and I hope that he will support not only our UK climate change levy but our public investment programme, so that the World Bank will set up, as he knows, a fund providing loans and grants to enable developing countries to move into alternative sources of energy and to make more efficient use of existing energy.

David Taylor: If media reports are to be believednot always the caseVladimir Putin was successful in keeping Africa off the core agenda of the G8 meeting in his country at St. Petersburg. Can the Chancellor reassure the House that education has the greatest potential to transform the lives of people on the continent of Africa? Will he try to ensure that the subject of education provides a means of broadening the debate so that Africa is not forgotten? It played a central part in Gleneagles, but it seems to be less central in St. Petersburg this week.

Gordon Brown: I suspect that middle east issues will form a big part of the G8 agenda in St. Petersburg, but I can assure my hon. Friend that African issues will be discussed. I can also assure him that the Germany presidency of the G8 next year fully intends to make development a central part of what it does. The IMF and World Bank meetings in September are focusing heavily on issues of development and providing finance for it. There is also a UN reform commission that is looking into how the UN can play a far more effective role in development in future. Far from those issues being off the agenda after Gleneagles, they are definitively on the agenda, and I believe that the public action by non-governmental organisations, Churches and faith groups, which have kept it on the agenda over the past year, will also keep it on the agenda in future years. I hope that MPs on both sides of the House can join Churches and faith groups in making sure that in every country there is a full knowledge of our responsibilities to the developing countries.

Theresa Villiers: At the forthcoming meeting, will the Chancellor urge his G8 colleagues to live up to their promises on programmes for dealing with HIV/AIDS, particularly programmes relating to children? Will he take steps to ensure that UK Government programmes that are administered multilaterally alongside G8 partners or the EU give HIV/AIDS a much higher priority than they have in the past?

Gordon Brown: I will not be attending the meeting at St. Petersburg on Saturday, but I was at the meeting of Finance Ministers there only a few days ago. What was decided there was that we would push the development agenda forward. We discussed health issues and promised that HIV/AIDS sufferers would get some form of treatment and help by 2010. We know that 25 million people have died as a result of AIDS, we know that there are 12 million AIDS orphans and we know what our responsibilities are. Instead of promoting what I believe are divisive ideas about education vouchers, I wish the Conservative party would unite around the necessary funding that should go through Governments and civil society to deal with problems of health and education.

Tax Credits

Danny Alexander: If he will make a statement on the recent operation of the tax credits system.

David Heathcoat-Amory: What assessment he has made of the level of fraud in the tax credit system in the last 12 months.

Dawn Primarolo: I made a statement to the House on Tuesday on the operation of tax credits. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs published on its website its estimates of error and fraud for tax credits relating to 2003-04.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for that reply, but it is a shame that it did not come from the Chancellor, who has not answered an oral question on tax credits for 791 days. One cause of the extraordinary level of fraud and error in tax creditsnow the worst in the welfare systemwas payments made to people subject to immigration controls. Why were the verification procedures that would have prevented such mistakes, specifically rule 12, suspended for 18 months from April 2003? Did the Paymaster General approve that decision?

Dawn Primarolo: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that at no point were officials instructed to overlook irregularities where claimants had failed the UK residential rule. I also say to the hon. Gentleman that I am the Minister for the Department, I am accountable to the House and I accept responsibility for what happens in the Department.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Tax credits are the Chancellor's flagship scheme, but the level of fraud and error reported to the House earlier this week is running at nearly 2 billion for just one year. Does that not add the Treasury to the growing list of Government Departments, such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office, that are not fit for purpose? How can the Treasury hope to control the rest of Whitehall when it cannot even run its own schemes properly?

Dawn Primarolo: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for 2005-06, as reported to the House, he will see that the Department stopped the overwhelming number of attempts to defraud it, thus demonstrating clearly that the anti-fraud measures are working. But of course he is right, and it is true for any Department that fraud must be tackled and reduced and that claimant error must also be tackled, by ensuring that claimants have clearer information and a clear understanding of their responsibilities and that the Department responds accurately and in a timely way to those submissions.

Angela Eagle: May I ask my right hon. Friend to focus on the outcome of the tax credits system, which in my constituency is providing new chances for single parents to work and therefore look after their own families, giving new opportunities to people who did not have them before and tackling child poverty, which was an absolute scourge when the Labour party came to power?

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend works very hard in her constituency to ensure that her constituents receive all their entitlements, including tax credits, and she will know that the take-up of tax credits in their first year of operation, particularly for lower income families, was about 93 per cent., so we now have 10 million children6 million familiesbenefiting. Tax credits have made a huge contribution in helping people to return to work, in paying for child care and, most importantly, in eradicating child poverty and lifting children out of poverty. That is the situation that needs to be tackled, because child poverty doubled under the previous Government, and the difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party is that we are dedicated to eradicating child poverty; they do not even want to understand it.

George Mudie: Is the Paymaster General aware that, only five weeks ago, the Treasury Sub-Committeechaired so well by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who is sitting on the Opposition Benchesfound that the policy of using tax credits as a method of taking people out of poverty was laudable and that the programme had considerable success? Encouraged by such all-party support, will she assure us that she will continue her efforts to help the poorest people in our communities?

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right to refer to the Treasury Sub-Committee report, which I welcomed when it was presented to the House, because it made it absolutely clear that both the Sub-Committee and the overwhelming number of people who gave evidence to it said that tax credits had widespread support, that they made an important contribution to tackling child poverty, and that they should be supported.

David Gauke: We have learned that, in 2003-04, nearly 1 in every 10 paid in tax credits was paid either in error or because of fraud. Specifically with regard to fraud, does the Paymaster General believe that that figure will fall as a proportion of tax credits paid, and if not, why not?

Dawn Primarolo: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for 2003-04, he will see that they are divided between claimant error and fraud, which amounts to 70 million. As I explained to the House earlier in the week, the difference between error and fraud is that the investigating officer must be certain that there was an attempt to defraud, as opposed to a genuine error. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to suggest that strategies need to be developedthey have been announced to the Houseto ensure that claimant error is reduced, that the information given to the Department is correct, and that officials act on it speedily and correctly. I have already answered the question on fraud in response to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), by pointing out that the strategies in place in the Department are ensuring that the majority of fraud attempts made against it are not succeeding.

Wayne David: Does the Paymaster General agree that tax credits have been absolutely central in helping to reduce the tax burden on low-to-middle income families and that Opposition Members should welcome that?

Dawn Primarolo: One would expect both the Opposition parties to welcome tax credits on the basis that, according to the latest figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the tax paid by an average family on 21,000 a year has gone down from between 18 and 19 per cent. to 9 per cent. That has to be welcomed. In addition, the number of families paying no tax on their income has risen since 1997 from fewer than 2.5 million to more than 3 million, when tax credits and benefit reform are taken together. One would have thought that the Opposition parties would welcome this, but they do not, because they do not want to tackle poverty. That is the dividing line between us. They decry the experience of poverty but, unlike this party, they will do nothing to eradicate it.

Paul Goodman: The Paymaster General is making a spirited attempt to defend the indefensible, but the real culprit is not the Paymaster GeneralI will pay her that complimentbut the Chancellor. He invented the system, which is riddled with error and fraud. The Treasury itself concedes that nearly half of all payments are wrong. Week after week, the Chancellor answers questions about world poverty, which is not his responsibility, but he will not answer questions about tax credits, which are. Will he now get to his feet, come to the Dispatch Box and take responsibility for this mess, instead of using the Paymaster General as a human shield?

Dawn Primarolo: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has made a terrible mistake here. He has just described tax credits as indefensible. What is indefensible is his party's record of doubling child poverty. When he reflects on his contribution in the Chamber today, he will deeply regret the fact that, for the first time, he has made it abundantly clear that the Conservatives are not prepared to defend tax credits. They do not support them because they are not prepared to tackle child poverty.

Cocaine Smuggling

John Mann: How many drugs liaison officers within Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs are employed in tackling cocaine smuggling.

John Healey: From April this year, the Serious Organised Crime AgencySOCAtook over responsibility for the network of overseas drugs liaison officers. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs retains responsibility for anti-smuggling controls at the UK borders, and continues to seize drugs as part of its frontier work.

John Mann: Unlike drugs such as heroin, cocaine is incredibly price-sensitive. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the expertise that has been built up in Customs and Excise will be made fully available to SOCA to ensure that the unsung successes in intercepting cocaine that have taken place in areas such as the Caribbean, giving great value for money, are not only continued but expanded by the Government?

John Healey: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work in the House, his constituency and elsewhere on the serious menace that drugs cause in our communities. I can give him the assurance that he seeks. When SOCA was set up, more than 1,100 drugs officers and their expertise were transferred from HMRC, and they now play an integral part in the work that SOCA is undertaking. I can also assure him that HMRC and SOCA continue to work closely together, including at the frontiers, so that we can continue to play a part in the battle against drugs.

Philip Hollobone: A very high proportion of the 8,000 foreign prisoners in British jails are drug smugglers from Jamaica and other Caribbean countries. Will the Minister liaise with the Home Secretary to ensure that those people are sent back to secure detention in their own countries, thus saving the British taxpayer a small fortune?

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman refers to a groundbreaking, innovative and highly effective programme called Operation Airbridge. This involved UK Customs and Exciselater HMRClinking up with the Jamaican constabulary to prevent would-be cocaine smugglers and swallowers from getting on to the planes in the first place. That operation has resulted in an increase in the number of smugglers being intercepted in Jamaica, a reduction in the number of seizures and smugglers from the Caribbean being intercepted here, and a consequent reduction in the number of smugglers from those parts of the world having to be dealt with by our criminal justice system.

Bob Blizzard: Until April there were two drug liaison officers in Peru, and then SOCA moved them to Colombia. Peru is the second largest cocaine-producing country in the world, cocaine production is on the increase and crop eradication and substitution programmes are not working. Intelligence-led intervention in trafficking will make the biggest difference to this country. Will my hon. Friend increase SOCA's resources for that work, so that our drug liaison officers, who are very successful, can be in both Peru and Colombia?

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right to say that the role played by drug liaison officers overseas is pivotal. As I have explained, they have now been transferred to SOCA. He is right to stress the importance of being able to intercept drugs at every stage of the supply chain. He may be interested to know that in the first 10 months of last year, the agencies combined intercepted more than 30 tonnes of cocaine destined for European markets, which we would otherwise have had to try to intercept either at our borders or on our streets. That important international work is helping to keep some of our local communities freer of drugs than they would otherwise be.

Monetary Policy Committee

Peter Tapsell: What plans he has to review the appointments procedure of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England.

Gordon Brown: Today I am appointing to the Monetary Policy Committee Mr. Andrew Sentance, chief economist at British Airways and previously chief economist of the CBI, and Professor Tim Besley of the London School of Economics. The whole House will also want to pay tribute to the work of the former MPC membersRichard Lambert, who is now director general of the CBI, and particularly David Walton, a brilliant economist who tragically passed away at the young age of just 43. Recognising the issues of market sensitivity, the procedure is that all appointments are made strictly in accordance with the legislation.

Peter Tapsell: I start by echoing the Chancellor's deep regret at the tragic early death of the brilliant David Walton, which is a great loss to this country. But does the Chancellor regard his answer as an adequate response to the growing criticism in the City, in which even the Governor of the Bank of England has partially joined, of what is perceived as his dilatory and over-secretive approach to the filling of vacancies as they occur on the Monetary Policy Committee? Why can the procedure not be more open and transparent? Is it appropriate, in a Bank of England that the Chancellor claims he has made independent, that those appointments should be made by him in such a personal way?

Gordon Brown: Let us remind the House that the hon. Gentleman was a vicious opponent of the independence of the Bank of England. He said that it would lead to deflationary policies and higher unemployment, and that the Bank of England's reputation would be damaged. All those things proved to be untrue. On the appointments system for the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, the legislation requires that we seek people with experience and expertise. That has been achieved, and the proof is in the record. It would be wrong, when there is market sensitivitywhich, unfortunately, the shadow Chancellor deniesif a rumour about a Monetary Policy Committee appointment meant that there was movement of the pound and the stock exchange. There is market sensitivity, so such appointments must be handled with care.

George Osborne: The Chancellor appoints them all.

Gordon Brown: Well, if we had followed the Opposition's policy, the Bank of England would not have been independent, we would not have had stability, we would not have had low inflation, and we would not have had the lowest interest rates for 30 years.

Brian H Donohoe: Has a review been undertaken to find out the effects of the independence of the bank since 1997?

Gordon Brown: The effect of independence for the Bank of England and the accompany monetary and fiscal policy is that inflation, interest rates and mortgage rates have been half what they were in the previous 18 years. I have considered all kinds of proposals that have been put forward for reform of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee. I have considered the shadow Chancellor's proposal that the House of Commons vote every year on the inflation target, which would be a recipe for the very instability that the Conservatives created in government. I have also considered his proposals for appointment to the Monetary Policy Committeeand it is remarkable that those proposals are intended to increase the external accountability of the Monetary Policy Committee. Even the Governor of the Bank of England would disagree with a proposal for the Governor to choose the two deputy Governors, the Governor to choose the other two internal members and the Governor also to have a role in the appointment of the remaining four members. That would mean the Governor having either a direct or an indirect role in the appointment of all eight members except himself. How would that secure accountability? The shadow Chancellor should go back to the drawing board and think againabout this and other issues.

Julia Goldsworthy: I echo the sympathy expressed by the Chancellor over the sad death of David Walton. The independence of the Bank of England was called for and welcomed by the Liberal Democrats, but does the Chancellor agree that it is compromised by the direct control that he exercises in appointments? Is he prepared to give up that control and fall into line with the code relating to ministerial appointments? If not, why not?

Gordon Brown: I remind the hon. Lady that the Conservative party opposed the legislation for independence of the Bank of England. She says that she supported that legislation

Lindsay Hoyle: She was not here.

Gordon Brown: But the hon. Lady's party supported it. The legislation that she supported provided for five internal members of the Bank of England and four external members. That was in the legislation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to propose the appointment of people with experience and expertise to the Monetary Policy Committee. I ask the House whether the record of the Bank of England as a result of our decisions has been good or bad. In my view, the only answer that the House can give is that we have achieved a degree of stability that the Conservatives could never dream of.

Mark Hoban: I echo the Chancellor's comments about the late David Walton, and the work that he and Richard Lambert did on the MPCbut Richard Lambert was appointed to the MPC by means of a telephone call, as was Andrew Large. The Governor said before the Treasury Committee that the current process was
	something that is very informal and seems to result in appointments being made very much at the last minute.
	Is it not time for a proper, open and robust process for MPC appointments, rather than their being made furtively behind closed doors, on the whim of the Chancellor?

Gordon Brown: The policy of the hon. Gentleman's party favours greater accountability of the MPC to Parliament and the public, but the detail of the shadow Chancellor's proposal is that the two deputy Governors should be chosen by the Governor, the two internal members should be chosen by the Governor, and the Governor should have a direct role in the choice of the four external members. That is not extending external accountability. The Conservatives are making a laughing stock of their own policies.

Inheritance Tax

Martin Linton: If he will assess the merits of linking inheritance tax thresholds to median house prices in each council area.

Stephen Timms: This year's Budget announced above-inflation increases in the inheritance tax threshold, with the threshold rising to 325,000 by the end of the current Parliament. Even given rising house prices, most homes are below the threshold. A link to house prices in each area would be very difficult and complex to administer, and I think that it would also be unfair.

Martin Linton: What should I tell my constituent, who lives in a terraced house in Battersea and fears that her daughter, who is also her full-time carer, would face a bill for more than 100,000? Average house prices in my borough are still 80,000 above the threshold, and even given the increasesenormously welcome though they arethey will still be some 35,000 above it. Does not my hon. Friend, as a London Member, share my fear that families will no longer be able to live in the family home when their parents die, and that families will disperse and communities break up?

Stephen Timms: I know that my hon. Friend will agree that it is right for the estates of better-off people to contribute to wider welfareand only 6 per cent. of estates paid inheritance tax last year. I think that he will also accept my point about the complexity that would arise if the threshold varied constantly, depending on what had happened to house prices, and if it were different in every area. In cases such as the one that he has described, equity release might help. I think that there would be a real problem if estates with no residential properties but otherwise identical paid different amounts of tax in different parts of the country.

Peter Bottomley: The Minister may have dealt with the main point made by his hon. Friend, but he has not dealt with the supplementary point. What happens if a 90-year-old mother living with two 60-year-old retired daughters has a house whose value is above the threshold? How can she pass it on, without the benefits of civil partnership?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman is one of those who would agree that it is right that the estates of wealthy people should contribute to the wider wealth; I know of his interest in addressing poverty. In the situation that he describes, perhaps equity release could help. It is right that larger estates should contribute to the wider welfare, and that is what inheritance tax allows to happen.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend review the threshold annually? Rising house prices mean that it is Mr. and Mrs. Average who are now being caught by inheritance tax, whereas the wealthiest have the best advisers, set up trust funds, hold their money abroad and do not pay.

Stephen Timms: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the situation is reviewed annually, and we have committed to above-inflation indexing up to 325,000 by 2009-10. Where there are loopholes, we will continue to take steps to close them, and further progress was made on that front in the Finance Bill this year.

Economic Growth

Stephen Crabb: What recent discussions he has had with his G8 colleagues regarding prospects for global economic growth.

Edward Balls: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor met his G8 colleagues in June. At that time, Finance Ministers judged that prospects for global growth remained strong, although downside risks from high and volatile energy prices, global imbalances and the lack of progress on the Doha trade round remain.

Stephen Crabb: I thank the Economic Secretary for that reply, butas I think he knowsthe UK's recent economic growth looks good only when set against some poor comparators. Will he explain specifically why he thinks that the UK's GDP growth over the past year has been less than the US's, less than Canada's, less than Japan's, and less than the G7 average, and why we are forecast to grow less strongly than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average this year? Has the Treasury given up on the idea of the UK being able to compete in the top division for GDP growth in industrialised countries?

Edward Balls: The growth rate for the UK was revised up by the Office for National Statistics a week ago for 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. Since 1997 growth in output has been 26 per cent., compared with only 15 per cent. in the previous nine years. We have also had the lowest unemployment. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, for example, unemployment has fallen by two thirds and long-term unemployment by 90 per cent. At the same time as achieving growth and low unemployment, we have had stability and low inflation. That is because of our successful reform of the Bank of England, which would be put at risk by proposals to change the inflation target annually and remove the majority of internal members on the Monetary Policy Committee. We were told a few months ago that there had been detailed discussions on those matters, and the Governor was forced to issue

Mr. Speaker: Order. If those are Opposition proposals, it is not for the Minister to tell the House about them.

Richard Spring: When discussions take place with G8 colleagues, will the Economic Secretary explain to other members of the G8 why unemployment in this country has risen faster than in any other advanced country in the past 12 months?

Edward Balls: Unemployment in the euro area is 7.9 per cent., in Germany it is 8.3 per cent and in Britain it is 5.2 per cent. That is the lowest level for 30 years. In the past four years there have been recessions in Japan, Germany, France and the US, but not in Britain. We all remember what happened when the Conservatives were running the economy. We remember what it was like to have unemployment at 3 million and interest rates at 15 per cent., and we are not going to go back to those days. It is about time we had a grown-up debate on the economy, instead of this triviality.

Jim Cunningham: Has my hon. Friend had any discussions with the G8 countries about the high cost of energy?

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is right: the high oil prices were discussed at the G8 meeting a few weeks ago. We have the highest oil prices for 25 years, and the geopolitical situation has meant that we have had high oil prices and falling stock markets since the beginning of the decade. Despite those pressures, we have still managed to combine rising employment, low inflation and rising growth. The last time such issues arose in the global economy, we had recession rather than growth, high inflation rather than low inflation and high unemployment rather than low unemployment. We have no intention of going back to those days.

Tax Credits

David Heyes: How many non-pensioner families in the Ashton-under-Lyne constituency were recipients of tax credits in each of the last three years; how many have been identified as having received overpayments; and if he will make a statement.

Dawn Primarolo: The estimated number of child and working tax credits awards in the Ashton-under-Lyne constituency in 2003-04 was 11,600. In 2004-05 there were 13,300 awards to families in Ashton-under-Lyne, of which 4,100 were overpaid.

David Heyes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. It is clear that many families in my constituency have been lifted out of poverty by tax credits, and she is to be commended for her role in that. However, she will know that the continuing delays in resolving disputes about overpayments still cause hardship and distress for some people. One of my constituents has been told repeatedly that she is invisible to the computer, even though she can produce reams of correspondence that the computer has generated. Other eligible constituents have simply abandoned their claims in despair. Will my right hon. Friend redouble her efforts to get to grips with such problems?

Dawn Primarolo: As my hon. Friend acknowledged, some 13,300 families in his constituency benefit from tax credits. He will be aware that I have announced to the House that the Department must deal with disputed overpayments within four weeks, and that it must continue to pay claimants while disputes are being resolved. That is precisely what is happening. I hear what my hon. Friend says about specific cases in his area. I cannot deal with them now, but if he raises them with me in writing, I shall do my best to get him a sensible answer.

Greg Clark: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Tunbridge Wells is a bit too far away for him to get involved in this question. While I am on my feet, I must advise you, Mr. Stuart, that you must be quiet. You have had your say in the House, and it is unfair to barrack Ministers every time they speak.

Digital Inclusion

Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on his fiscal policies to support the Government's digital inclusion strategy.

Stephen Timms: Competition is helping to boost digital inclusion through falling prices for equipment and communications services. The Government are helping by making targeted fiscal interventions, such as supporting the network of 6,000 UK Online centres. We are also investing in information and communications technology in schools and funding ICT at home for school students.

Peter Luff: I have had some harsh words with members of the Treasury Bench about how the home computing initiative was abolished, but I have since received conciliatory letters acknowledging that there is a hole in the digital inclusion strategy in respect of low-income employees. Will Ministers acknowledge the efforts made by the industry to address those problems and to deliver a compliant and self-regulatory framework for schemes that enable employers to purchase computers? In that way, the industry is helping to plug that very important hole in the Government's strategy.

Stephen Timms: I am not sure that the hole to which the hon. Gentleman refers exists. Home computer penetration has risen from one in four in 1997 to two thirds today, which shows that very welcome progress has been made, largely because of falling prices. I know that the hon. Gentleman has submitted some proposals on behalf of the industry, and I assure him that Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry are looking at them. When he submitted them, he said that they looked rather complicated, and I think that he was probably right. However, the large price falls in PC equipment and much higher home take-up mean that the case for Government intervention looks much less strong today than it did in 1999, when the incentive was introduced.

Brian Jenkins: Analogue switch-off is looming for many people, so will my hon. Friend consider funding the move from analogue to digital out of future income from the sale of the spectrum? Would that not be preferable to letting the cost fall on BBC licence fee payers?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is looking at those issues, and at ways of helping people make the transition in the future. Certainly, the switchover holds out a lot of promise for promoting digital inclusion, and I am sure that he and the whole House will welcome that.

Financial Capability

Stephen Hesford: What steps his Department is taking to improve financial capability among the general public; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Balls: The Financial Services Authority has a statutory objective to increase consumer understanding of the financial system, and works in partnership with the Government, the industry and the voluntary sector on those matters. I can tell the House that in the autumn my Department will publish a 10-year strategy on financial capability and inclusion, setting out the Government's plans for action in that important area.

Stephen Hesford: I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome his announcement. I know that the FSA is doing all it can to increase knowledge and literacy in financial matters for schools, young adults and workplaces and by providing money advice for new parents. Could the FSA extend its remit to pensioners and others who have to deal with instruments and other matters because of the increasing capital wealth among that age group?

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is right. In implementing the pensions White Paper, we will need to focus on such capability issues for future pensioners as well as current pensioners. Some things have been done, and we have announced that financial education will be embedded in the GCSE maths curriculum over the new few years. But there is much more to be done, and I shall give the House two facts. On the one hand, we know from our recent benchmark survey that more than 70 per cent. of schools provide personal financial education only occasionallyonce or twice a month. We need to do much better than that, which is what the survey is about. However, our survey also shows that the cash management skills of many people on low incomes are very goodconsiderably better than the cash management skills of many people in the House.

Greg Clark: When it comes to financial accountability, how many times in a row should a set of accounts be qualified by the auditors before the finance director gets the sack?

Edward Balls: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the European budget, I can tell him that I am going to Brussels this afternoon to meet Commissioners, and I shall be at the budget Council of ECOFIN tomorrow. It is of great concern to us that the budget has been qualified for 11 or 12 years. That is exactly why, last autumn, we agreed in ECOFIN a plan to sort it out by 2009. We ought to have support from Opposition Members in trying to sort out the European budget, rather than the continual triviality of their attempting to leave the mainstream of Europe and join the extremist fringes.

Ian Austin: Has my hon. Friend considered funding courses in financial capability for MPs who believe that it is possible to increase spending in areas such as housing, child care, youth services and social enterprises at the same time as introducing a proceeds of growth rule that would result in cutting public expenditure by 17 billion?

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is right. Perhaps we could arrange such classes, where we might explain to people that it is not possible to invest in education, tackle child poverty, clean up the environment and at the same time cut 17 billion from public spending, as the shadow Chancellor proposes.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that too many financial institutionssuch as banks, building societies and credit card companiesencourage people of all ages to borrow beyond their ability to repay? Is that responsible? Should not something be done about it? The citizens advice bureau in my area wrote to me recently about growing debt among the elderly, because they are encouraged to borrow. What can the Government do about it?

Edward Balls: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and join him in praising the work of citizens advice bureaux. I met them a week or so ago, and they are in the process of hiring 350 personal finance advisers, precisely to give that kind of advice. It is often the case, however, that people fall into debt because they suddenly and unexpectedly face unemployment, family break-up or ill health. In those circumstances, going into debt would be the wrong thing, and we need to give people proper advice and support. In general, I do not think it right to say that banks should discourage people from taking out loans or credit cards, which in fact play an important part in our economy. The fact that so many more people in our society have mortgages and are home owners is a good thing, but we need to make sure that people have proper advice and support, especially at times of crisis, and I commend the CAB for all its work.

Non-EU European Banks

Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to improve the regulation of the London-based operations of non-EU European banks.

Edward Balls: The Financial Services Authority regulates all non-EU banks operating in the UK under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. That includes the regulation of prudential standards, conduct of business, liquidity and financial crime. The Government and the FSA work closely together to ensure that the regulation of the banking sector is effective, well focused and up to date with current market practice.

Barry Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend stop dodging and diving on this one? I have been trying to get some protection for constituents of mine, who believed that when they allowed assets to be managed by a Swiss bank that had opened a London office, they had the same protection as customers of other banks, and that European directives would apply. Pictet Asset Management does not conform to those rules. Is it not about time that Swiss banks were regulated properly in this country?

Edward Balls: The Financial Services Authority regulates all banks operating in the UK in relation to financial crime and all other matters, including Swiss subsidiaries and branches, under existing legislation. I would say to my hon. Friend that I have been in this job for eight weeks, and this is the first time that we have had a conversation on this subject. I am happy to look into it in detail, but as I said, this is the first time that we have had the opportunity to discuss it. If he would like to meet, I will be happy to do so and provide him with all the reassurance he needs that the FSA is doing a good job, including with Swiss banks and subsidiaries.

The Speaker: Order. We now return to Questions 4 and 14.

Fundamental Savings Review

Jim Devine: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of the level of funding for public services on the economy.

David Tredinnick: When the fundamental savings review will be published.

Gordon Brown: To ensure that, in the coming spending round, even more resources will go direct to front-line services, I am requiring asset sales in excess of 30 billion by 2010; and as we complete a zero-based and fundamental review of each Department's baseline spending, with further announcements in the pre-Budget report, I can also confirm that all Departments will have to achieve efficiency savings of at least 2.5 per cent. annually, on top of the 21 billion administrative savings being implemented from the Gershon review. Administrative budgets which have already been frozen will now be cut not only in real terms but in cash terms, releasing extra resources for front-line services. These administrative savings make possible improvements in service within a Home Office budget which, as agreed, will have a flat real settlement, and settlements for the Treasury, Department for Work and Pensions, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Cabinet Office, which have agreed a 20 per cent. real-terms decrease over five years.  [Interruption.]
	I am also today publishing the terms of reference for the six policy reviews on children and young people, the third sector, economic development and regeneration, supporting housing growth, mental health outcomes and counter-terrorism and security. These will inform cross-Government priorities for the comprehensive spending review. I can confirm that Sir David Varney, chairman of HMRC, will report to me at the pre-Budget report on further administrative savings[Hon. Members: This is a statement.]and I am also publishing my letter to the public sector pay review bodies, proposing that public sector pay settlements should be founded on a 2 per cent. target.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Pritchard, the last thing you should do is shout. If you are unhappy, you may raise a point of order after Question Time.

David Tredinnick: Why has the Chancellor chosen to put that information out with a whimper, not a fanfare, at the end of Treasury questions? Surely the House deserves a proper statement. And why is it so at variance with his press release of 19 July 2005, which promised a thorough review of demographic change, innovation, global issues and terrorism? What has happened to his pledge to look at spending over 10 years? If we just look at health spending, 73 per cent. has gone on increased costs. When will Government get a grip of these issues and ensure that money is spent more effectively?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman should read what I have said previously. We published a document on globalisation and its challenges. We shall publish a further document on that in the pre-Budget report. As for administrative savings based on a zero-based review, I am announcing todayand I thought there was some all-party support for itthat we are finding savings in administration, we are imposing efficiency savings and we are imposing asset sales. The purpose of that is to release resources for front-line services. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen would support that, but perhaps the Conservative party is still the party under which, when additional public spending was announced in the 1990s, 80 per cent. of it went to debt and unemployment; whereas now 80 per cent. of new spending goes to health, education and vital public services.

Jim Devine: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he ensure that the spending review does not follow the rule whereby public expenditure grows less than the growth in the economy?

Gordon Brown: I reject the rule that has been put forward called the third fiscal rule. The third fiscal rule would require, no matter what the circumstances, that public spending should fall as a share of national income.  [ Interruption. ] It was excellent I hear a Conservative Member say. It was exactly the policy on which the Conservatives fought the last election and the previous election. The electorate knew that and voted on the basis that they wanted to see improvements in health and education investment, money spent to relieve child and pensioner poverty, and this country properly defended and secure. I suggest that to impose a rigid rule on public expenditure would mean cuts of 17 billion this year and 18 billion next year. That would mean that hospitals, schools and public services generally would not have the resources that they need.

George Osborne: Is this empty document really what the Prime Minister called the vital foundation stone of his spending review and announced at the Labour party conference last year? This is not a fundamental savings review. A fundamental look at Government spending would have asked this simple question: how can Labour have taxed so much, spent so much and achieved so little? How can Labour have spent 4 trillion over nine years and have an NHS that is sacking doctors and nurses and a Home Office that is not fit for purpose? Surely a serious attempt to find savings would have addressed soaring public sector construction costs and falling public sector productivity, but the document does none of those things. Surely a review of that kind would have concluded that the real reason why the Chancellor has been a big spender rather than a wise spender is because he blocked proper public service reform.

Gordon Brown: I am amazed at the shadow Chancellor. He does not support my announcement that we get efficiency savings of 2frac12; per cent. He does not seem to acknowledge my announcement that the administration budgets of Departments will be cut. He does not seem to recognise that 30 billion of asset sales are being asked for. He does not seem to recognise that the administrative budgets of Departments, which were 6 per cent. in the early '90s, will fall below 4 per cent. now. When it comes to the reason why he does not recognise that, I have a copy of a speech that he gave at the fringes of the Conservative party conference. He said that he would not compete with us at the next general election on efficiency savings. What he would do is promise that there would be very specific cuts in particular areas of the Budget, such as child tax credits and the new deal. He said:
	It's a hard choice which we will put to voters in an election.
	He should tell us which hospitals, which schools, which teachers and which nurses will [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Vincent Cable: I thank the Chancellor for sending us his 66-page report before the statement, but he did not give us the opportunity to respond fully to it. The Prime Minister himself set out the criteria at his party conference, when he stated that the report would describe
	where we can save, and where we need to spend more.
	Since the Chancellor has already indicated where he intends to spend morepartly on admirable objectives such as reducing child poverty, but also on massive overruns on the NHS IT scheme, on an ID card scheme costing 15 billion, on acquiring sites for new nuclear power stations, and on advance spending on the Trident missilecan he point us to those paragraphs in the report that show the Departments that will be cut in order to accommodate that? As his savings appear to depend largely on efficiency, which, of course we entirely welcomethe Gershon savingscan he point us to independent reviews that have shown where those efficiency savings have so far been materialised and how they will be monitored thoroughly in future?

Gordon Brown: We have had the work of the National Audit Office, the announcement in this document in relation to the first step40,000 jobs in the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs that were referred to in the Gershon report have goneand the announcement in this document that DWP, HMRC and the Treasury, as well as the Cabinet Office, will have 5 per cent. real-terms cuts in their budgets over the spending round. The hon. Gentleman has therefore got the answer that he sought. I also said that this is part of a process whereby, in the pre-Budget report, we will have the Varney report and further detail on departmental settlements. Next week, we will have the capability reviews of individual departments. That is a continuing process that will lead to the spending round next year. I thought that he would have welcomed that, particularly as he has a special problem to solve: he has to find 20 billion to plug the gap.
	When the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party was asked a few days ago how he would do that [Interruption.]

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know how to tell the Chancellor to sit down. I do not need help from anyone else. I say to the Chancellor that the policies of the Liberal and Conservative parties are really nothing to do with the Chancellor in the House.

Ken Purchase: My constituents have benefited massively from the extraordinary increases in public expenditure for front-line services. They also value greatly their own public assets, which they have worked and paid for and which they control through public policies. Will the Chancellor give us some idea, an overview, of what kind of assets he intends to dispose of in order to give a further boost to public services?

Gordon Brown: Surplus land is a very good exampleland that has been held by public authorities for a long period is now being released for housing. We have achieved 6 billion of asset sales in the last two years, and there will be 30 billion of asset sales by 2010. It would be wrong for the Government to hold on to assets that they did not need; it would be right for the Government to keep assets that they do need. My hon. Friend will see that that 30 billion makes possible investment in other areas of vital importance to the economy and to public services. He would be the first to acknowledgeindeed he did sothat in the past nine years we have doubled expenditure on health, and on education, and on policing and on transport, and the results are that not only do we now have more doctors, nurses, teachers and teaching assistants but standards in health, education and policing are rising, not falling.

Adam Price: The huge and mounting private finance initiative debt with which the Chancellor has saddled the public sector is now beginning to lead to cutbacks in the very front-line services that he is trumpeting. In advance of any internal Labour party election, is this one Tory policy that he regrets adopting?

Gordon Brown: The Tory policy was to cut public expenditure. Our policy is to increase public expenditure. The problem with the hon. Gentleman's policies is that they are so economically illiterate that they would lead to the same results of cuts in public expenditure, and he should go back to the drawing board and think again.

Kerry McCarthy: Last week I visited Brislington enterprise college in my constituency to look at the architect's plans for investment in new school buildings under the building schools for the future programme. Last week also saw the announcement of 750 million for investment in community hospitals, and in Bristol 42 million for the Greater Bristol bus network. Will the Chancellor assure me that that investment in front-line public services will continue under a Labour Government? What would be the implications for such investment if he were to give in to calls for spending to grow at a lower rate than economic growth?

Gordon Brown: I am pleased about those developments in my hon. Friend's constituency. That is happening in all constituencies, and Conservative and Liberal Members are also getting benefits from that investment. When we came into power net public investment was 7 billion. It is now 27 billion a year; it is rising, and because of the announcements today it will continue to rise every year right through to the end of the next spending round in 2011. I should have thought that in a country that desperately needs expenditure on infrastructure, as well as investment in health and education, there ought to be all-party support for that increase in investment, rather than the cuts programme of the Conservative party.

Michael Howard: Nothing could more vividly demonstrate the contempt that the Chancellor has for the House than the way he sought to make what is in effect and should have been a statement in this underhand way, and all because of his childish desire to avoid giving my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and the other party spokesmen advance sight of what he was going to say. Why has not the Chancellor given the House, from that Dispatch Box, a progress report on the implementation of the Gershon review? Is it not because, like so much of what comes from him and the rest of this Government, that review amounted simply to warm words and the Government have fallen far behind in its implementation?

Gordon Brown: What was unimplementable were the James proposals that the right hon. and learned Gentleman put forward at the last election. Our Gershon proposals have already achieved 9frac12; billion out of the 21 billion of savings to be made by 2008. We have already reduced employment by the 40,000 net that we promised out of the 80,000 to come by 2008. We have already relocated 8,000 civil service jobs out of the 20,000 planned. We have reduced the share of administration in the Budget as proposed: compared with the 6 per cent. under the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government, it is less than 4 per cent. under ours. I am not going to take any lectures about administration from the former Leader of the Opposition who was the poll tax Minister who caused the worst administrative mess in taxation this country has ever seen.

Michael Fallon: Does the Chancellor not understand the damage done by the stop-go nature of his public spending planning? Public spending was first constrained, then expanded massively, and today there are panic cuts outside the priority areas. Can he confirm that the Treasury has asked some public bodies to prepare illustrative plans on the basis of budget cuts of 5, 10 and 15 per cent.?

Gordon Brown: That question shows the difference between the Front Benchers and the Back Benchers. The Front Benchers say that the proposal is a damp squib, but the hon. Gentleman says that it cuts beyond anything that has ever been seen before. The truth, however, is that we are making administrative savings so that we can get more money to front-line services. Every person in the country will welcome the cuts that will be made to administrative budgets, the sale of unnecessary resources, which will release money for further investment, and of course the efficiency savings being achieved in different Departments. Once the hon. Gentleman looks at the details of the proposals, I should expect him to welcome them, and perhaps he might give a lecture to those on his Front Bench. These are serious proposals, and they should not be dealt with in the immature way that the shadow Chancellor has done.

Andrew Love: May I welcome the tough announcement that the Chancellor has made? The 2.5 per cent. cut that he announced will free up resources for our priorities of health and education, and I look forward to that. I welcome strongly the announcement on housing, but is the Chancellor selling off assets to ensure that the proceeds are made available for additional housing, and in particular affordable housing?

Gordon Brown: I can tell my hon. Friend that the budget for social housing is being doubled, which is a major advance.  [Interruption.] The party of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) set interest rates at 15 per cent. and prevented people from buying houses when they were in government. We have just announced 900 million for equity sharing to allow more people, particularly young couples, to buy their first home. I believe that we will be able to make further announcements about the extension of equity sharing, which should be supported on an all-party basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) is right that in addition to health, education, policing, security, and our defence responsibilities, housing has a priority in the future spending round.

David Laws: Can the Chancellor explain why, in the Home Office section of the report, identity cards are not even mentioned as one of the Home Office spending priorities? Is that because the Treasury was responsible for the leak by David Foord of the Office of Government Commerce, who talked about the unaffordability of the ID card project and a lack of clear benefits? He said:
	Just because ministers say do something does not mean we ignore reality.
	Has the Chancellor finally accepted the reality, which is that the scheme will not wash?

Gordon Brown: Sometimes I think that the hon. Gentleman lives in a completely unreal world. Identity cards are the policy of this Government. I should have thought that the more that people see the chances of their identity being stolen by organised crime, the more they would support identity cards. The Opposition parties have made a very big mistake in opposing identity cards, which are part of the spending settlement for the Home Office.

John Redwood: As someone who has never wanted cuts in hospitals and schools, but wants to reduce waste and inefficiency, I obviously welcome the Chancellor's latter-day conversion to the idea that we can achieve efficiency gains in the public sector. This time, has he consulted with the staff in advance and how many posts will have to go to meet these new, interesting targets?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is chairman of the Conservative party's economic competitiveness policy group, so there will be an interesting debate in that group between those who believe that we are doing something serious, as he does, and those who do not take seriously the fact that a major change is taking place in administrative budgets. As for the numbers, 80,000 civil servants, particularly at the DWP and the HMRC, will be replaced. As a net figure it is nearly 40,000, and as a gross figure it is over 40,000 now. We will reach the 80,000 figure by 2008, and we will introduce further proposals for the next spending round, so that we can ensure that we provide the most resources for the front-line caring services, which are the priority for the Government and, I know, are the first priority for the people of Britain. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support in this case, but can he inform and educate the shadow Chancellor on these matters?

Mark Pritchard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take it after the statements.

Business of the House

Theresa May: Will the Leader of the House give us the business until the recess?

Jack Straw: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 17 JulyRemaining stages of the Compensation Bill [ Lords].
	Tuesday 18 JulyConsideration of Lords amendments to the Health Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Government of Wales Bill, followed by a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the  Official Report.
	Wednesday 19 JulyOpposition half-day [unallotted day]. There will be a debate on home information packs on an Opposition motion, followed by remaining stages of the Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill  [Lords].
	Thursday 20 JulyA motion to approve the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2006, followed by a debate on international development on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 21 JulyThe House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 24 JulySecond Reading of the Welfare Reform Bill.
	Tuesday 25 JulyMotion on the retirement of the Clerk of the House, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, followed by a motion on the summer recess Adjournment.
	 The information regarding business on Tuesday 18 July is as follows:
	The following reports fall within the scope of the motion:
	
		
			  2005-06 
			 Fourth Report Fraud and error in benefit expenditure HC 411  (Cm 6728) 
			 Seventh Report The use of operating theatres in the Northern Ireland Health and Personal Social Services HC 414  (Cm 6699) 
			 Eighth Report Navan Centre HC 415  (Cm 6699) 
			 Ninth Report Foot and Mouth Disease: applying the lessons HC 563  (Cm 6728) 
			 Twelfth Report Helping those in financial hardship: the running of the Social Fund HC 601  (Cm 6728) 
			 Thirteenth Report The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Tackling homelessness HC 653  (Cm 6743) 
			 Fourteenth Report Energywatch and Postwatch HC 654  (Cm 6743) 
			 Fifteenth Report HM Customs and Excise Standard Report 200304 HC 695  (Cm 6743) 
			 Sixteenth Report Home Office: Reducing vehicle crime HC 696  (Cm 6743) 
			 Seventeenth Report Achieving value for money in the delivery of public services HC 742  (Cm 6743) 
			 Eighteenth Report Department for Education and Skills: Improving school attendance in England HC 789  (Cm 6766) 
			 Nineteenth Report Department of Health: Tackling cancer: improving the patient journey HC 790  (Cm 6766) 
			 Twentieth Report The NHS Cancer Plan: a progress report HC 791  (Cm 6766) 
			 Twenty-first Report Skills for Life: Improving adult literacy and numeracy HC 792  (Cm 6766) 
			 Twenty-second Report Maintaining and improving Britain's railway stations HC 535  (Cm 6775) 
			 Twenty-third Report Filing of income tax self assessment returns HC 681  (Cm 6775) 
			 Twenty-fourth Report The BBC's White City 2 development HC 652  (Second Special  Report, HC 1139, 2005-06) 
			 Twenty-fifth Report Securing strategic leadership in the learning and skills sector HC 602  (Cm 6775) 
			 Twenty-sixth Report Assessing and reporting military readiness HC 667  (Cm 6775) 
			 Twenty-seventh Report Lost in translation? Responding to the challenges of European law HC 590  (Cm 6775) 
			 Twenty-eighth Report Extending access to learning through technology: Ufi and the learndirect service HC 706  (Cm 6775) 
			 Twenty-ninth Report Excess Votes 200405 HC 916  (N/A) 
			 Thirtieth Report Excess Votes (Northern Ireland) 200405 HC 917  (N/A) 
			 Thirty-first Report Northern Ireland's Waste Management Strategy HC 741  (Cm 6843) 
			 Thirty-second Report Working with the voluntary sector HC 717  (Cm 6789) 
			 Thirty-third Report The Royal Parks and the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain HC 644  (Cm 6789) 
			 Thirty-fourth Report Returning failed asylum applicants HC 620  (Cm 6863) 
			 Thirty-fifth Report The refinancing of the Norfolk and Norwich PFI Hospital HC 694  (Cm ????) 
			 Thirty-sixth Report Tackling the complexity of the benefits system HC 765  (Cm 6863) 
			 Thirty-seventh Report Inland Revenue Standard Report: New Tax Credits HC 782  (Cm 6863) 
			 Thirty-eighth Report Channel Tunnel Rail Link HC 727  (Cm 6863) 
			 Thirty-ninth Report Consular services to British nationals HC 813  (Cm 6863) 
			 Fortieth Report Environment Agency: Efficiency in water resource management HC 749 
			 Forty-first Report The South Eastern Passenger Rail Franchise HC 770 
			 Forty-second Report Enforcing competition in markets HC 841 
		
	
	The reference number of the Treasury minute to each report is printed in brackets after the HC printing number

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business up till the recess.
	There have been a number of oral statements in recent days, but, sadly, that has not included the Chancellor's announcement about the fundamental savings review, and it was only because of your willingness, Mr. Speaker, to extend the time for Treasury questions that Members could question the Chancellor on that review. If the Chancellor has a statement to make, he should come to the House and make a proper oral statement, which would give a proper opportunity for all Members to question him on it. Perhaps his unwillingness to do so has more to do with the fact that the fundamental savings review was an idea announced by the Prime Minister at the Labour party conference, not by the Chancellor. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chancellor to come back to the House to make a proper oral statement on that review to allow more than just 20 minutes of questions from Members to the Chancellor?
	Oral statements enable Members to put questions direct to Ministers, whereas written statements do not give that opportunity to raise matters in the House, particularly if they are published on the day the House goes into recess. On the day the House went into recess at Easter, there were 39 written ministerial statements. Last year, on the day the House went into summer recess, there were 63 written ministerial statements. What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to ensure that we do not have a repeat performance, with a large number of written statements coming out too late for Members to question Ministers?
	It has been shown that there has been a hidden waiting list in the NHS for diagnostic tests, with patients waiting up to an average of 17 weeks for some tests. Some patients have to wait up to two years, but we do not know what the maximum wait is. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Health places full figures in the Library so that Members can see the true state of waiting lists, rather than the partial figures that the Government quote? Before the right hon. Gentleman prepares his standard response to me, which is about how many more nurses there are in my area, perhaps he will let me know instead why respite care at St. Mark's hospital, Maidenhead is under threat, Townlands hospital is under threat of closure and maternity services have been cut at Wycombe hospitalall affecting my constituents.
	It was shocking to read this week that the Department of Health has been sitting on a report on patient safety in mental health services that refers to a number of rape cases. May we have a debate on mental health services when we return in the autumn, and will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Health publishes that report well before the debate?
	Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition challenged the Prime Minister on reports that the ID card scheme had been delayed. The Prime Minister's response was:
	It is a huge programme and there are bound to be changes along the way.[ Official Report, 12 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 1384.]
	So when will the Home Secretary come to the House to make a statement about those changes?
	The Home Secretary announced on 21 June that there were plans for a major shake-up of the Home Office and that his task force would produce firm proposals by July. Will the Leader of the House arrange also for the Home Secretary to come to the House before the recess to make a statement on the changes proposed for the Home Office, so that we can know what on earth is going on there? The Home Secretary gave himself 100 days to sort out the Home Office. He is more than two thirds of the way through, and with the visa scam at foreign language schools, failure to deport foreign criminals, the ID card project being delayed and confusion over police mergers, he is not doing very well.
	This summer the Office for National Statistics will bring in changes to place all private finance initiative deals on the Government's balance sheet. That is bad news for the Chancellor, as it could blow a hole through his sustainable investment rule. May we have a debate on the production and use of Government statistics? Does the Leader of the House stand by his comments made in a speech to the Royal Statistical Society in 1995 that there should be a national statistical service that should be
	placed at arm's length to Ministers, on a similar basis to that of the National Audit Office, and should report principally to a powerful Committee of the Commons,
	and that the new arrangements
	would be placed on a statutory basis within a 'Governance of Britain Act'?
	Whatever happened to the governance of Britain Act?
	Finally, yesterday, when asked who would be in charge of the country in the Prime Minister's absence, the Prime Minister said that
	the arrangements are exactly the same as they have been in previous years.[ Official Report, 12 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 1385.]
	Either that means that the Deputy Prime Minister will be in charge or it means that, unbeknown to him, he has never actually been in charge in the past. It was reported at one stage that the Leader of the House was being put on stand-by to take over in the Prime Minister's absence. May I tell him that the country would breathe a collective sigh of relief if that happened? After all, he has a job, he owns his houses and he has never been seen wearing a Stetson. What are his holiday plans?

Jack Straw: It's the way she says it, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Lady asks for a statement on the spending review. It is standard procedure provided for in Erskine May for Secretaries of State answering questions that may generate much more interest than would be taken account of by the normal time allowance for questions to delay them till the end of the Question Time. That, in my experience, has generally been to the approbation of the House, so I am surprised that the right hon. Lady and other Opposition Members are being so churlish about it. Questions 4 and 14 were drawn down by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer precisely because he recognised the interest in the matter, and there were then well over 20 minutes to discuss it.
	The right hon. Lady spoke about oral statements. I entirely accept that, wherever possible, it is better for oral statements rather than written statements to be made to the House, and we will not keep her unsatisfied in that respect this week, next week or the week after. However, many statements have to be made by way of written ministerial statements. It is a characteristic of all Governments at all times that many announcements tend to be delayed until the last minute before recesses. Written ministerial statements were an innovation that we introduced because they are better than planted parliamentary questions, but I am encouraging my colleagues to ensure that, whenever possible, written ministerial statements are published before the last day. We are all aware of the issue, but with the best will in the world, there will be some on the last day.
	The right hon. Lady asked about hidden waiting lists and the true state of those lists. I am only too happy to tell her about the true state of the waiting lists. I will not mention the increase of 85,000 in the number of nurses since 1997, nor the increase of many thousands in the number of doctors. Nor will I mention the fact that between 1997 and 2005 the number of doctors in the health area that covers the right hon. Lady's constituency increased by 1,400. I will mention, however, that overall waiting lists have fallen by 370,000 over the past nine years. The average wait for in-patient treatment is now 7.7 weeks, and waits of more than nine months are down by more than 118,000 since 1997. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for asking that question.
	I understand the point that the right hon. Lady makes about mental health services. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is ready to publish the National Patient Safety Agency's report, which is being finalised, as soon as it is complete. I cannot promise that there will be a debate on mental health services in the spillover session, but I can promise that there should be such a debate in the autumn.
	The right hon. Lady asked about statements by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. There will indeed be statements if he has to make any significant changes before the recess.
	The right hon. Lady referred to a fine speech that I made in 1995 about reorganisation of the Office for National Statistics. I am flattered that she has such a stock of my speeches. That led to a manifesto commitment in 1997, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken forward. Progressively, we have strengthened the independence of the ONSI am glad to see agreement from Conservative Members on thisand we will continue to do so. That is in sharp contrast to the scandal under the Conservatives, who undermined the integrity of national statistics by manipulating them.
	I am surprised that the right hon. Lady did not give me the usual list of demands for additional debates. I assume that she did not do so because of the most extraordinary own goal that she and Opposition Front Benchers committed yesterday. I have been in this House for 27 years, and I cannot think of a single occasion when the Opposition have gone into the Lobby five minutes before an Opposition day debate to vote to silence the House on that day. However, if they want to carry on in that way, that is absolutely fine.

Keith Vaz: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 2483 on the death of Zahid Mubarek?
	 [That this House welcomes the report of Mr. Justice Keith into the death of Zahid Mubarek at Feltham Young Offenders' Institution; condemns without exception the litany of systemic and individual failures that led to the death of this young man; calls on authorities to consider what action they are able to take against those individuals specified by Mr. Justice Keith as having direct responsibility in some way for the death of Zahid Mubarek; and hopes that in light of this tragedy action is taken to improve the conditions in which young offenders are detained and to safeguard young offenders in detention.]
	I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have seen the report by Mr. Justice Keith, which sets out a systematic set of failures by the Prison Service, particularly at Feltham young offenders institution, where this young man died on the day before he was due to be released. As yet, no one has been held responsible. May we please have a debate on this important issue to ensure that the circumstances surrounding Zahid's death are not repeated?

Jack Straw: I fully understand the deep concern of my right hon. Friend, the family of Zahid Mubarek, and many others. I was Home Secretary at the time of this terrible murder, and I take my share of the responsibility for the Prison Service's failure at that time. Many positive changes have been introduced in the Prison Service since 2000, not least following the important judicial inquiry that was conducted. I believe that the Prison Service is now absolutely seized of the need to ensure that something like that never happens again.

David Heath: We shall try very hard not to interfere with the Conservative Opposition day next week.
	The Leader of the House suggested that what we just witnessed from the Chancellor of the Exchequer was normal procedure. It is not. I defy him to find in Erskine May any example of a 66-page documenta White Paper with enormous ramifications for public spendingbeing released under such circumstances and without the opportunity for proper debate. I ask him seriously to consider whether it should have been a matter for a proper statement to the House, as I believe that it still should be next week.
	I hear what the Leader of the House says about trying to avoid last-minute written ministerial statements. I hope that he achieves that. Perhaps he should tell Departments that the House goes into recess next Thursdaythen we will have all the written statements on Thursday and at least two days to consider what they say before the event.
	We should have a debate or a statement on the health service. I was struck, as was the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), by the delays in diagnostic testing. It is not good enough that people have to wait for six months after seeing their GP for an essential diagnostic test. Irrespective of the investment that is going into the health service, that is a critical period for patients. This needs to be addressed, as it is an area where the Government are failing.
	When we are debating the health service, perhaps we could consider the position of foundation hospitals and the fact that the heads of the companies that lend more than 500 million a year to the NHS are worried that they are going bankrupt. Are not the Government worried that foundation hospitals, which are now the flagship of the NHS, are going bankrupt?
	I hope that I am not breaching any sub judice rules following recent events, but when we come back we need to have a serious and sober debate on party funding to enable us to exchange views, because all parties need to have a clear view of what will happen in future.
	Before the recess, may we have a statement from the Leader of the House on the pressing matter of whether the Scrutiny Committee will have oversight of the Prime Minister's resignation honours?

Jack Straw: Let me deal first with the hon. Gentleman's point about the drawing down of Questions 4 and 14 by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is nothing unusual about this procedure. [ Interruption.] There is notit is set out on page 399 of Erskine May, and it is usually for the convenience of the House. I used the procedure as Foreign Secretary in respect of an issue that was of profound importance to Members of this House, as well as internationally, and excited just as much interestthe necessary withdrawal of our monitors from the jail in Jericho that then led to the arrest of the prisoners. For the life of me, I cannot see why Opposition Members are complaining about this, because it was to the benefit of the House, not its disadvantage.
	I cannot guarantee that there will be no written ministerial statements on the Tuesday that we get up, but I hope that there will be fewer. As we all know, when written ministerial statements are put down on the Tuesday rather than the Monday there is, among other things, a cry that we are trying to avoid scrutiny. Generally speaking, we are notit is merely that there has been a great logjam in getting them agreed.
	There will be a debate on aspects of the health service when the Compensation Bill is before the House on Monday. There are plenty of opportunities to debate health services, and we are always delighted to do so, because despite the difficulties that will arise at any time, there is not a single constituency in which health care and spending has not improved, and the satisfaction of our constituents has not gone up, in the past nine years. Yes, it is the duty of Oppositions to criticise the Government, but in doing so they should not continually imply criticism of the additional thousands of doctors, nurses and other health care workers who are delivering that additional health care.
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Sir Hayden Phillips is conducting an inquiry into party funding to which all parties are giving evidence. Sir Hayden has said that he intends to report by the end of the year, and he may give some interim indications in the middle of the autumn. It would be premature to have a debate until we have at least an interim report from him.
	On the Scrutiny Committee, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to write to him.

Barry Sheerman: May I remind my right hon. Friend that today13 Julyis the birth date of John Clare, one of our greatest English poets? Many regard Clare as one of the greatest English poets of the countryside and the environment. Would not it be appropriate to hold an early debate after the recess about the Education and Skills Committee report on the value of out-of-school education? We expect an imminent response from the Government on a manifesto for education outside the classroom. Is not it time that we ensured that all children in this country, wherever they live, have the opportunity to visit, enjoy and fall in love with the English countryside?

Jack Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments and I commend his work on commemorating John Clare, including setting up a trust, about which I recently read an interesting interview with him in a magazine.

Peter Robinson: On the back of the most peaceful July parade for many years, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate so that we can examine areas where there were glitches, consider changes that can be made to the procedures and structures surrounding parades and perhaps discuss the Northern Ireland Office's initiative to fund the Orange Institution to broaden the event's appeal and make it more of a tourist attraction?

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland reported to Cabinet this morning that yesterday was the first occasion since 1970 when the Army did not need to take part in policing the paradesan extraordinary achievement by all the communities in Northern Ireland and the security forces. I offer our congratulations.
	I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I take note of the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and I am sure that discussions will take place between him and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Don Touhig: Will my right hon. Friend agree to an annual debate on the Welsh blockthe billions of pounds that the House provides for public services in Wales? Secondary school heads in my constituency tell me that there is a growing disparity between what they receive and what schools in others parts of the United Kingdom receive. Given that the Assembly Minister for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills refused to meet them, refuses to meet me and even refuses to meet the Assembly Member for Islwyn, Irene James, an annual debate will mean that those of us in the United Kingdom Parliament can scrutinise what is being done with the generous settlement that we provide.

Jack Straw: Such a debate would be a good idea. My hon. Friend emphasises that the House controls the amount of money available to the devolved Welsh Assembly and the devolved Scottish Parliament. We did not make a one-off decision to devolve power to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Although we devolved power to them, we continue to exercise a great deal of control over what they can do through the block grant. For that and many other reasons, any suggestion that there should be two tiers of Members of Parliament in the House, with Scottish and Welsh Members denied an opportunity to vote on issues that directly or indirectly affect their constituents, is an outrage and would undermine the Union of the United Kingdom.

Nicholas Winterton: I fully support the request of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on mental health services and facilities, not least because I have received information that Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Trust is trying to remove all in-patient mental health facilities from Macclesfield district general hospital.
	Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Greater Manchester PCTs forum will not make decisions about in-patient paediatric, maternity and obstetric services that affect my district general hospital and the people of west Derbyshire and north-west Staffordshire as well as east Cheshire before the House comes back? It would be wrong for Members of Parliament not to have an opportunity to raise those matters on the Floor of the House. We are considering essential NHS services.

Jack Straw: I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and ask her to respond to his obviously genuine concerns. He is an experienced advocate for his constituents and I know that he will be skilled in making his points to the PCTs forum and the PCTs in his area as well as the mental health trust. There is no way in which the health service in England can be run through the Secretary of State and the Department of Health making every decision. Local trusts or bodies will always make decisions locally, and that is appropriate. They are given the responsibility and have to make the decisions.

Peter Soulsby: In response to questions from me at a sitting of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee yesterday, the Secretary of State was unable to reassure the Committee that, as a result of failures in the Rural Payments Agency, the Department is not contemplating severe cuts in current and future budgets of the agencies and organisations that it funds. Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that if DEFRA is contemplating cuts to bodies such as the Environment Agency and British Waterways, he will ask the Secretary of State to come to the House to make a statement before the recess so that hon. Members have the opportunity to question him about why those bodies, their customers and those who rely on their services should suffer cuts because of unconnected failures in the Rural Payments Agency?

Jack Straw: All Departments have to live within their budgetsthat is life. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been assiduous in coming to the House to make statements. I am sure that he will do so again if it is judged appropriate.

Andrew MacKay: The Leader of the House appeared to fail to understand the strength of feeling on the Opposition Benches about extradition arrangements with the United States and the lack of reciprocity. He failed to understand that we felt so strongly yesterday that we were prepared to delay our debate on home information packs until next week by voting with the Liberal Democrats to draw attention to the fact that something disgraceful is happening. He could put the matter right. The Police and Justice Bill will return from the Lords soon. The Government suffered a major defeat when their lordships rightly decided that there should be reciprocity. May we have ample time to debate the relevant amendment and a free vote, so that Labour Members who share our concerns are allowed to do that without the interference of the Whips?

Jack Straw: I can take such criticism from the Liberal Democrats, who have consistently expressed their concerns about the Extradition Act 2003. It was known from the start that there would not be complete symmetry. We debated the matter at great length, not only yesterday but during the passage of the 2003 Act and when the matter was debated Upstairs under affirmative resolution procedure, which designated the United States as a part 2 country, notwithstanding the fact that it had not ratified the treaty. The Liberal Democrats voted against the order when it was presented on the Floor of the House on 15 December 2003. We voted in favour of it. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and all his hon. Friends abstained. They had no view about it then. That shows how little concerned they were about the matter at that stage. I am sorry but it is not a matter for Johnny-come-latelys.

Helen Goodman: Given the rapidly deteriorating situation in the middle east, will the Leader of the House assure us that the Foreign Secretary will discuss the matter with colleagues at the G8 over the weekend? As well as the report back from that meeting, will my right hon. Friend please reconsider whether there is time for a full debate?

Jack Straw: I understand the desire for a full debate, and so does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will go to St. Petersburg for the G8. As he told the Cabinet today, it is clear that the deteriorating situation, which now affects the whole of the middle east, will be at the top of the agenda for all G8 countries. In Cabinet, my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister expressed profound concern, and the Foreign Secretary reminded Cabinet of her condemnation of what is regarded as a disproportionate response by Israel as well as deep concern about the activities of Hamas and Hezbollah.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement about that on Tuesday, following his return from the G8. The statement will be about the whole issue of the G8, but this matter can be covered by him in that statement, and it will be. There are also Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions in the following week, and meanwhile my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be at the General Affairs and External Relations Council of the European Union on Monday, where this matter will be top of the agendaand, if possible, she or one of her Foreign Office Ministers will make a statement later in the week, if necessary.

Angus MacNeil: I am a bit perplexed by references already made this morning to public funding, but in the light of increasing public concern, and given the conclusions in the recommendation of the Public Administration Committee, which was published this morning, can Government time be found to debate the issues addressed in my Honours (Prevention of Corruption) Bill, and will the Prime Minister make a statement?

Jack Straw: The progress of Bills in this House is a well-known procedure and the Government will, of course, respond to the Public Administration Committee in due course.

Tom Harris: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 2519:
	 [That this House believes plans by the right hon. Member for Witney to ban hon. Members representing constituencies in Scotland from voting on matters relating exclusively to England would precipitate a constitutional crisis which would threaten the future of the United Kingdom; and further believes that everyone elected to this House should have the same rights of participation, irrespective of which part of the United Kingdom they represent.]
	I tabled it in anticipation of the expected Opposition day debate by the Conservative party on the West Lothian question that was due to take place yesterday, but which did not do so, presumably because wiser counsel from the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) andGod help usthe  Daily Mail prevailed. Therefore, may we have a debate in Government time on the West Lothian question, so that the Conservative party's incredibly cynical position on that issue can be properly exposed?

Jack Straw: I cannot promise that, but I will do my best. My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is extraordinary that the shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), told us through the organ of  The Observer that he was hoping to use an Opposition day debate before the House broke for the summer to highlight the English votes Bill. Somehow or other, the Conservatives had a touch of nerves; the fact that they have been so worried and concerned to avoid this issue being discussed is another reason they voted down their own half-day yesterday. I would be delighted for this matter to be discussed. Meanwhile, I should like to draw to the attention of a wider audience a speech that I made on Tuesday to the Hansard Society on precisely this issue.

Nadine Dorries: I asked the following question of the previous incumbent of the right hon. Gentleman's post, and I make no apologies for asking it again. I spent last Friday on the wards at Bedford hospital, where I witnessed nurse managers, nursing sisters and departmental managers leaving meetings in tears because they are going to lose their jobs. Nurses are the drivers of, and the most important people in, the NHS. They deserve to have a day and a debate of their own in this place, when we can discuss the future role of nursing in the UK, the fact that so many of them have lost their jobs, and where exactly nursing is going. I hope that the Leader of the House will make time for such a debate. Will he do so?

Jack Straw: I understand the concern of the hon. Lady's constituents, and of nurses in her area, about what are temporary difficulties in health services in some parts of the country. Of course I commend such nurses' work, but I hope that the hon. Lady will take account of the fact that, between 1997 and 2005, there was an increase of 2,500 in the number of nurses in the area that covers her constituency.

Nadine Dorries: They have lost their jobs.

Jack Straw: No, 2,500 nurses have not lost their jobs in that area. There has been some reduction in the number of nurses, but that has been from a much higher level than ever was achieved under the Conservatives.

Paul Truswell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, last week, Kate Barker published her interim report on the impact of the planning process on business. Does my right hon. Friend agree that community involvement in the planning process is a vital part of our local democracy, and that it would be appropriate for us to have a debate in this House to ensure that that aspect of the planning system receives equal treatment, so that not only the interests of one sector of the community are addressed?

Jack Straw: I certainly agree with what my hon. Friend says about the importance of involving communities. Like him, I receive many complaints about, and representations on, planning issues; they come from both sidesthey are both in favour of development and against. I will ensure that my hon. Friend's concerns are drawn to the attention of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Mark Hunter: Please will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on human rights abuses in China, and specifically the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners? The right hon. Gentleman might be aware of the forthcoming publication of a report, co-authored by a former Cabinet Minister from Canada, on the horrific practice of organ harvesting, and the shocking details of human rights abuses contained in that report surely demand the attention of this House and wider debate.

Jack Straw: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the human rights report published by the Foreign Office, which gives details of the representations that the British Government are making on human rights in China. Meanwhile, I urge him, if he wishes to do so, to table a question on this issue for Foreign Office questions on Tuesday week.

Geraldine Smith: I am sure that the Leader of the House appreciates the importance of schoolchildren being able to visit this House, and that he will be delighted to know that a group from Morecambe high school are here today, seeing the workings of Parliament. Will he join me in thanking the education unit for all its help and, indeed, Virgin Trains for making it possible for schoolchildren from the north-west to come here? However, can he also tell me what we can do to improve facilitiesand, indeed, when the visitors' centre will be readyso that we can make the public most welcome in this House?

Jack Straw: I commend my hon. Friend for her initiative in organising the Morecambe high school trip, and Members from all parts of the House. This kind of involvement by young people in the workings of Parliament and of politics is of profound importance if we are to maintain and develop interest in our democracy. Such trips are not just about having a day out; they are about something much more profound. A good experience in this House can live with people for the rest of their lives. The education unit and Virgin Trains deserve great approval. Following decisions made by this House on recommendations of the late Robin Cook and my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who is now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, big changes and improvements in the way in which visitors are treated in this House are under way, and the visitors' centrewhich will be a huge improvementwill be opened later in the year.

Richard Bacon: What does the Leader of the House think of the proposal of the Hansard Society in its document, The Fiscal Maze: Parliament, Government and Public Moneyof which he was sent a copyfor experimental financial audit sub-committees to be set up for some of the main Departmental Select Committees, so that there can be greater scrutiny of estimates and public expenditure?

Jack Straw: It is a very interesting reportI have read itand, as with all other Hansard Society proposals, it will be taken seriously. I will consider this recommendation with Government colleagues and will reach a considered view. Of course, because this is all-party, and it is the Hansard Society, we take it seriously.

Ian Austin: May I tell the Leader of the House how important I think it is that we have an urgent debate on the utterly disgraceful, anti-British, unpatriotic proposal to ban MPs from some parts of this country from voting in this House?

Jack Straw: I agree. The Conservatives might have decided not to use one of their Opposition days on this matter because of real concern among many of their wiser right hon. and hon. Members about the implications of this two-tier system, which would lead inexorably to the break-up of the United Kingdom. Let me say as an Englishman that, yes, the United Kingdom has benefited all the four nations of the United Kingdom, but it was basically an English idea and it is England that would suffer the most if the Union were to break up.

Iris Robinson: Will the Leader of the House urgently set aside Government time to discuss the plight of the families of the disappeared who were murdered by Sinn Fein-IRA and how best we can assist them in real and practical terms, as well as putting pressure on Sinn Fein-IRA to give the Police Service of Northern Ireland the locations of the murdered missing people so that they can have a proper burial and this nightmare can be brought to an end once and for all?

Jack Straw: I will certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the hon. Lady's very great concern, which we all share, about the plight of the disappeared and the need for a continuing spotlight to be put on Sinn Fein-IRA for their responsibility for what happened to these people.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Leader of the House reflect on the fact that today, Sir Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, published his annual report, in which he expresses dismay at the volume and mishandling of a great deal of personal data? I suffered from the unlawful disclosure of so-called personal data about me, which were subsequently acknowledged to be wholly untrue. That underlined the need for this House to examine the workings of the Data Protection Act 1998 to see whether it should be improved, particularly so that people who are wrongly traduced can know who the authors of that calumny are.

Jack Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's concern and I am, of course, very familiar with the case that he mentions. We always need to improve procedures where we can, but I should point out that, had it not been for the 1998 Act, which was one of the very first that I introduced in this House as Home Secretary, none of us would have any right to know what data are held about us.

Greg Hands: May I return to the question of party funding? I have already highlighted how various constituency Labour parties are breaking the law, specifically section 5 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which requires that constituency parties declare income of more than 25,000. According to written answers, 308 Conservative and 76 Liberal Democrat associations declare their accounts, but only 24 constituency Labour parties do. I was intrigued by the advertisement in today's edition of  The Times, which purports to be from 28 individuals who say that they are
	proud to help fund the Labour Party.
	They may be proud but, according to the Electoral Commission's website, fewer than half of them have declared their donations to the commission.

Jack Straw: That might be because of the size of the donation. I would not advise the hon. Gentleman to mix it on this matter. If he has any complaints, he should refer them to the Electoral Commission; meanwhile, he should not judge the Labour party by the standards of the Tory party. I think that there is probably a reason why not many Labour party constituency associations are declaring that they have an income of more than 25,000it is because they do not have an income of more than 25,000.

International Development

Hilary Benn: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the White Paper on International Development that I am publishing today. Copies of it, and of this statement, have been placed in the Vote Office.
	At a time when the world has never been richer in wealth and knowledge, pregnancy and child birth claim the life of a woman every minute. Every day, dirty water and bad sanitation claim the lives of 5,000 children. Every year, malaria kills 1 million people, tuberculosis 2 million people, and AIDS 3 million people. Each death is a death caused by poverty.
	Last year, the world came together and agreed to do something to change that. The G8 summit at Gleneagles promised more aid and debt cancellation, support for free education and health care, treatment for all with HIV/AIDS, and better ways of dealing with conflict. We have made progress in the past 12 months, but we have not yet made poverty history. There is still much to do, and this White Paper sets out our plans for the next five years. In preparing it, we received more than 600 submissions from around the world, and I would like to thank Members and their constituents, as well as many others, for their contributions.
	How countries progress and improve the lives of their citizens is a complex process, but we know that governance is fundamental to it. Development does not happen without effective states that are capable of delivering services to their citizens and helping economies to growstates that respond to people's needs and which, in turn, can be held to account. For all those reasons, good governance is at the heart of this White Paper.
	While we will continue to help build public institutions' capacity for good governance in developing countries, we will now do more at the grass roots to reinforce the demand for good governance. To do this, we will set up a new 100 million governance and transparency fund, which will support civil society, a free media, parliamentarians and trade unions in improving accountability. To ensure that our aid is used to best effect, we will in future regularly assess the quality of governance and transparency and the commitment to reducing poverty in the countries in which we work. We will publish these assessments and use them to help make decisions about our aid.
	Recognising that bad governance and corruption are international problems, too, we will: publish an annual UK action plan to tackle corruption affecting developing countries, and report on progress every six months; set up a new unit to investigate money laundering and allegations of bribery affecting UK firms; help developing countries to track assets and to carry out investigations; seek to expandincluding through a resolution in the United Nations General Assemblythe successful extractive industries transparency initiative to other sectors such as construction, procurement and health; and work with others to set international standards to tackle the trade in conflict resources that fuels so much destruction. We will also strengthen implementation of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's guidelines with new arrangements for the UK contact point, involving independent experts.
	People cannot escape poverty if there is war and insecurity. We will therefore increase our efforts in fragile states and invest more in at least 10 countries where security is a major issue. That will mean help with reintegrating ex-combatants, supporting access to justice, monitoring human rights and reducing the spread of small arms, including through an international arms trade treaty.
	Peace and good governance are also essential for the economic growth needed to create jobs and raise incomes. We will support the Infrastructure Consortium for Africawhich has already helped to secure investment of 1.4 billion in a range of projectsand the investment climate facility. We will double our funding for research in science and technology, agriculture, adapting to climate change and new drugs and vaccines. We will help poor people to get better access to markets to sell their goods, and to finance to support their livelihoods. We will also continue to press for a trade round that enables developing countries to earn their way out of poverty, while meeting our pledge to provide 100 million a year in aid for trade by 2010.
	Everyone should have decent health care, education, water and sanitation, and social security when times are hard, and UK aid is already helping Governments to bring those to more of their citizens. With our aid rising to meet the UN 0.7 per cent. target by 2013, we will increase our spending on these public services to at least half of our bilateral aid budget. We will make long-term-commitments through 10-year plans, so that countries can make long-term decisions to hire staff, build schools and clinics and abolish user fees.
	We will increase spending on education to 1 billion a year by 2010 and, having doubled our spending on water and sanitation in Africa to 95 million a year by 2007, we will double it again by 2010, because clean water saves lives and helps more girls to go to school. We will also significantly increase our spending on social security in at least 10 countries in Asia and Africa over the next three years, because we know that one of the most effective ways to break the cycle of destitution that affects the poorest and most vulnerable is to give them a hand up to get them back on their feet.
	All that will need to be done in a world that is changingin which there is population growth, rapid urbanisation, the depletion of natural resources and climate change. That will be the ultimate test of global good governance, so we will work to secure international agreement on a long-term stabilisation goal; seek to ensure that developing countries are able fully to participate in any international negotiations; and support countries in adapting to climate change while generating the investment needed for clean energy.
	We will also need an international development system fit for this century, not the last. We will push for reform of the United Nations, so that there is centrally pooled funding and a single plan in each country; an integrated UN humanitarian system that responds faster when crisis strikes; further reform of European aid, so that the European Union can play its full part in international development; and a better system for holding all of usdeveloped and developing countries aliketo account for the promises that we have made.
	Finally, because this is a task for all of us, but particularly for the next generation, we will double our investment in development education so that every child in the UK has a chance to learn about the issues that shape their world. We will set up a new scheme to help UK groups to build links with developing countries and expand opportunities for our young people and diaspora communities to volunteer in those countries and to undertake internships with development charities.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, there is much for all of us to do. We have listened to the voices of people in developing countries, who have told us all what they want. We listened to the British people as they campaigned to make poverty history and, with their and the House's support and the proposals I am setting out today, the UK will play its part in helping people to eliminate poverty and to change their lives, and thus our world, for the better.

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the Secretary of State for his customary courtesy in giving us advance sight of his White Paper this morning and of his statement on it. The whole House will understand that it is a White Paper of more than usual importancenot only to the hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of our fellow citizens in Britain who care very deeply about these matters, but also to those living in a dangerous world where poverty and conflict breed anger and deep disaffection. We must demonstrate that Britain has the determination and the leadership to make the contribution that both our self-interest and our moral duty demand.
	I very much hope that the Secretary of State will feel that he draws strength from the fact that this is not a Labour or a Conservative agenda, but rather a British agenda. All mainstream parties in Britain are committed to the 0.7 per cent. target by 2013. On this side of the House, we are as determined as the Government to ensure that the British contribution to lifting the living standards of the poorest, combating disease and illiteracy, promoting good governance and improving multi-national institutions is effective and successful. We may have differences of opinion about how best to deliver some of the noble aims and objectives set out in the White Paper, but those aims and objectives have our wholehearted support.
	We look forward now to studying the White Paper and note that the House will have an opportunity to debate it next Thursday. At this early stage, I should like to ask the Secretary of State a number of questions. First, he has said that good governance is at the heart of his White Paper. We acknowledge the steps that the Government have already taken, building as they have on the foundations laid by Chris Patten, Lynda Chalker and the last Conservative Government, but more needs to be done. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has said today that he will in future regularly assess the quality and transparency of government. I would like to ask him, though, what form that monitoring will take, who will do it and, most importantly, whether it will be independent of his Department?
	Secondly, the Secretary of State mentioned in respect of good governance a new unit to investigate money laundering. That is of interest to other Departments and agencies of the Government, so what discussions has he had with colleagues to ensure that the process is properly joined up and co-ordinated?
	Thirdly, the Secretary of State has rightly spoken up for an international arms trade treaty, but he will be aware of the deeply disappointing conclusion and lack of progress at the recent international conference. What is he doing to re-energise this important effort ahead of the UN General Assembly later this year?
	Fourthly, the Secretary of State set out his plans to spend more in fragile states, but how does he intend to ensure that such help gets through to the most needy on the ground? What steps will he take to work through deeply committed and effective non-governmental organisations such as Oxfam, working, for example, in Darfur? The shadow Foreign Secretary and I recently saw the work it does there.
	Fifthly, the Secretary of State spoke of the importance of securing a successful trade round that enables countries to earn their way out of poverty. He will know that the next few days are critical in persuading the key parties to the talks to give a little more to avoid the calamity of failure. What steps are the Secretary of State and, in particular, the Prime Minister taking to reinvigorate the negotiations in the margins of the G8 and beyond? Do not recent developments in China and India, where millions have been lifted out of extreme poverty, demonstrate that access to markets and trade are a vital component of prosperity?
	Sixthly, the Secretary of State rightly spoke of the need to update and reform the international institutions on which international development depends. In particular, he mentioned the United Nations. In my experience, it is an organisation that attracts people of the highest calibre and idealismpeople like Mark Malloch Brown, the Deputy Secretary-Generalbut it is floundering because of an outdated organisational structure. What ideas does the Secretary of State have to make the much-vaunted responsibility to protect, enthusiastically embraced by all nations at the UN summit last year, meaningful to people suffering in Darfur, Burma or Zimbabwe? How far should it impose on the international community a responsibility to intervene?
	In his statement, the Secretary of State mentioned future reform of EU aid. As he knows, we have reservations about the fact that aid channelled through the EU does not always reach the poorest or those who most need our support. What can he tell the House about his plans for leading such reform within the EU, which would bring EU aid closer to the ideal that we both share?
	The Secretary of State has made clear the potentially disastrous effects of climate change, particularly for the developing world, whether in the deserts of Africa or the flood plains of Bangladesh, which I am visiting on Monday. Will he tell us what structural changes his Department is making to address that problem and the interface between development and climate change?
	Finally, although we will want in due course to discuss in detail whether the Department is giving adequate and rigorous attention to the independent evaluation of aid effectiveness, particularly to outputs and outcomes, we welcome what the Secretary of State has said and applaud the emphasis that he has placed today on the importance of good governance.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for supporting the White Paper. It is indeed, in the broadest sense, the product of politics and of our own form of good governance. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned two of my predecessors from the Conservative party, who occupied the position that I now have the privilege to hold, let me say that part of the reason why I am able to announce increased spending on education and on a doubling again of investment in water and sanitation is that we have a rising aid budget. While I welcome the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman approaches his job and what he has said today, it has to be said that, in the end, we should all be judged by what we do when we have the chance to do it, rather than by what we say when we are not in power. People will have memories about what has happened in the past.
	To deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific questions, we will undertake the assessment ourselves, but we will draw on a wide range of sources. It will include others who are looking at the quality of governance and we will obviously talk to the Governments of the countries concerned. The fact that we will publish that will mean that there is transparency, and if others have a different view of our assessment they will no doubt be able to speak up.
	On the new unit to fight corruption and money laundering, I have, of course, discussed it with my right hon. Friends. I believe that it is absolutely right and proper that, in addition to the contribution of officers from the Met police and City of London police, DFID should contribute. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if we can be more effective in fighting corruption, the development benefits will be enormous.
	On the arms trade treaty, the short answer is that we will continue our efforts to persuade others in the international community that that is the right approach to take. If my memory serves me correctly, about 50 countries in the world support the principle of an arms trade treaty, and the consequences of the unfettered flow of arms are always to be seen in conflict, death and destruction. We are making the case and we are working hard to encourage other countries to support it.
	It is, of course, important to do more work in fragile states and the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that we will work with a variety of partners. Where it is possible to work with a country's Government, we will do so in the right circumstances, and we will also work with NGOs and other international partners.
	On the trade talks, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Prime Minister has been working very hard since the failure of last year's Hong Kong talks to try to get the discussions back on track. He is doing so as we speak in the run-up to the G8 summit this weekend. The question is how the logjam between the three big blocs can be broken. The Prime Minister has done as much, if not more, than anyone else in the world to try to break that logjam, but it requires all parties to recognise the need to move.
	On UN reform, the principal change that we need is that the UN development system should be more effective, which is why we have been very strong advocates both of the four ones in-country and of a central pool of funding, so that the UN systemwhich ought to have lead responsibility, particularly in fragile states and in setting standardscan be more effective.
	On the responsibility to protect, we need a combination of political will and the Government have demonstrated thatas the hon. Gentleman referred to Darfurin pressing very strongly in the UN Security Council for sanctions, for the UN force to be allowed to come in and for referring what happened in Darfur to the International Criminal Court. That is one aspect of the responsibility to protect. The other thing that we need to do is to build the capacity to act. That is why we have been such a strong support of both AMISthe African Union Mission in Sudanin Darfur and building an Africa stand-by capacity.
	On EU aid, it is a question of both European Community aidwhich has undoubtedly improved in recent years, but still has some way to go, particularly in ensuring that the EC has the right skills in-countryand the quality of aid of other EU members states, because almost all the growth in aid over the next five years will come from Europe. Therefore, part of what we will do is to talk to our partners about ways in which we can work more effectively together.
	On climate change, the permanent secretary is undertaking a skills review in DFID precisely to do what the hon. Gentleman referred to, namely, to ensure that we have the right skills to take on that increasingly important work.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I will continue to be determined to ensure that we keep an eye on aid effectiveness, because in the end all that work and all the policies laid out in the White Paper are for a purpose, which is to demonstrate to people that our international development effort makes a differenceand to do that, we must show results.

Tony Lloyd: I strongly commend my right hon. Friend's statement, as well as the White Paper that underlies it. He will have widespread support for the whole concept of capacity building, which is absolutely vital not simply in the fight against corruption, but in building strong societies. In that context, we as the United Kingdom have a special role in increasing the capacity of the legal and courts systems, which are absolutely fundamental to the whole concept of good governance, precisely because the English legal system is still the dominant system in large parts of the world. Will he tell the House how exactly we can enhance our role to ensure that the courts and the general legal framework are central to his own capacity building for good governance?

Hilary Benn: I agree completely with my hon. Friend, because an effective, functioning legal system is fundamental to good governance and, in particular, to giving people the confidence that if they have a disputewhether between two neighbours or in trying to enforce a legal contracttheir court case will be dealt with fairly. With a good, functioning and effective legal system, people are more likely to invest their money in those countries and therefore create jobs and generate the wealth that they need to pay for improvements in health and education.
	We already do a great deal of such work, as my hon. Friend knows, but what has been most striking in the past year is the keenness with which my Cabinet colleagues have said that they would like to do more of this work together. That is why we are now moving to the next stage of the Africa capacity-building initiative, which is to find a mechanism to match the desire to help with the demand for assistance from developing countries, so that we can draw on the great well of expertise and good will in the UK to work with legal professionals and others in developing countries to share skillsindeed, to learn from one anotherbecause that is absolutely fundamental to making progress.

John Barrett: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for presenting the White Paper and for the courtesy of supplying me with an advance copy of both the White Paper and his statement. The White Paper deals with issues that are literally matters of life and death for many of the most vulnerable people on the planet, many of whom are not only suffering from poverty, but from hunger and thirst, in some of the most dangerous parts of the worldwith natural and man-made disasters combining to add to their misery. These are complex issues and the detailed response set out today in the White Paper is a good milestone on the journey towards the end of that misery.
	Only a year ago, we witnessed not only the Make Poverty History march through my home city of Edinburgh and the Gleneagles summit, but the claims that, if only the G8 leaders would act on aid, trade and debt, we could make poverty history. However, I believe that such claims alone are simply not true, because other important issues, which are set out in today's White Paper, must also be tackled fully to make poverty history. Conflict is detailed on page 46 of the report, and the crisis that often follows the availability of natural resources in many of those fragile states is dealt with on page 35. Corruption is highlighted, as is global warming and the problems of diseaseAIDS, malaria and tuberculosisand access to clean drinking water supplies.
	The title of the report highlights the importance of good governance, and corruption dramatically affects many of the fragile states that we have talked about. Corruption is not just an issue at the lowest level, where people on starvation wages might take a bribe as a way to feed their children; some people at the top are skimming millions of dollars into overseas bank accounts, and action on that both in DFID and in the City of London is absolutely vital. I look forward to hearing what the Secretary of State can do in conjunction with the banks and other institutions in the City to tackle that issue.
	Democracy is also highlighted in the report, but we must remember that elections are simply not enough on their own if they give legitimacy to corrupt regimes. I should like to hear from the Secretary of State what he will do to empower citizens to hold their own Governments to account and to work with other Departments, such as the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, and parliamentarians here and abroad to ensure that that problem is tackled at all levels.
	We have also heard that aid must be effective. It is good that DFID's aid budget is increasing, but the Secretary of State is under pressure to reduce staffing levels. It is more important than ever for his Department to monitor the effectiveness of the spending to ensure that it is effectively delivered. Where DFID has taken actionfor instance, in Malawi, where the World Food Programme was charging more than $240 a tonne to deliver food aid, when DFID could deliver it for $100 a tonnemuch more aid was delivered, and I hope that reducing staffing levels will not reduce the ability to monitor where the money is effectively spent.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that DFID will be judged not on how much it spends, but on how effectively that money is spent? The Department has a good record on delivering humanitarian assistance following disasters. I recently witnessed its excellent response following the earthquake in Pakistan, but one interesting issue that cropped up on the ground there and stimulated debate is that of flag flying and the awareness of exactly what aid DFID is funding and delivering. An example was that the temporary shelters provided to help some of the 2 million to 3 million homeless in Pakistan had the Norwegian Government's brand on them, but they were more than 50 per cent. funded by DFID. Although I do not say that the flag should be waved in a colonial manner, we must ensure that two things happen. First, people must not be misled into not being aware of what DFID is funding. Secondly, when we are trying to build bridges with the Islamic community here at home, it is key that we make clear exactly what is happening in areas such as Pakistan and in other communities throughout the world, where good work is being done that is sometimes not fully recognised.
	I have not had time to read all the report, but I should also like to hear from the Secretary of State whether more will be done on remittances. He will know that massive sums of money are flowing into the poorest countries of the world, but some of them have significant transaction costs, which reduce the money's impact at its final destination.
	Page 7 of the report refers to the number of people living in the poorest countries of the world. Although we know that the poorest of the poor live in Africa, most of the world's poorest live elsewhere. I should like to know what the Secretary of State will do to reconsider how best to focus DFID's attack on poverty to catch those missing millions who live on less than $1 a day in Asia and Latin America.
	The Secretary of State rightly highlightedagain, there are details on page 93 of the reportthe more erratic weather conditions that are affecting more of the poorest of the poor in places such as the horn of Africa. Never before have we seen a clearer example of how the actions of the developed world, which is producing carbon emissions and eating up natural resources as if there were no tomorrow, and the impact that we in the west are having on the future of the poorest of the poor in sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the world

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could bring his remarks to a close. There is pressure on the business of the House because of the further statement.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. He made an important point about the two types of corruptiongrand and petty corruption. The action plan that I shall publish will give the House an opportunity to see the progress that we want to make. The governance and transparency fund will be the main vehicle for supporting people in their communities in improving the demand for good governance, and I will consult about the best way of setting that up.
	We will indeed monitor the effectiveness of our spending. It is good to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) in the Chamber. I hope that his Bill will get on to the statute book, because it will provide us with a very effective means of doing precisely what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) asked for in that regard.
	On disasters, we are considering putting in place some branding of the help that we give. There was, however, little doubt in the minds of those in the UK Kashmiri and Pakistani communities about the effectiveness of Britain's aid in response to the earthquake, not least because we sent the first search and rescue teams to the area. We are already doing work on remittances, particularly to bring down the costs involved, and we will continue with that work. In relation to the larger countries in Asia, I remind the hon. Gentleman that our biggest programme of all is in India, which is now making real progress. However, all those countries are going to be affected by climate change, and we have set out proposals on how we intend to respond to that.

Joan Ruddock: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the excellent White Paper. He may be aware that the World Bank and the International Energy Agency have estimated that it will take $300 billion every year for 25 years to meet the energy needs of developing countries and emerging economies. Will he work with the World Bank on its energy investment framework to ensure that, as far as possible, we donor countries no longer support polluting old energy technologies in developing countries, and that instead we provide them with the new technologies that deliver clean energy so as not to add further to the problem of climate change?

Hilary Benn: We will indeed support the World Bank in developing the energy investment framework. We will have a progress report on that at the World Bank's annual meetings in the autumn. My hon. Friend is right. There is a great thirst for energy in developing countries, because that is literally how they are going to be able to fuel economic development and fight poverty. It is vital that, as they invest in that new generating capacity, they do so in a way that does not add to the problem of climate change.

Malcolm Bruce: I welcome the White Paper and commend the right hon. Gentleman's Department for the leadership that it gives in setting standards for how aid should be delivered. I also welcome the fact that he is concentrating on good governance, which is essential if the money is to get to the poor rather than to corrupt elites. How effectively will he be able to deliver his objectives in the light of his recent cuts in budget support, particularly in Ethiopia and Uganda? Despite the fact that $200 million of international aid is going to northern Uganda, the Ugandan Government are failing adequately to deliver health care, education and policing. How will the Secretary of State ensure that they deliver those services and that we get an international settlement that will allow people to return to the region? Does he believe that he can deliver his budget with reduced staffing levels? If he has to go down the multilateral route, how will he use his role as the British member of the World Bank to make it more effective and follow DFID's world-class example in delivering aid more effectively? Is he aware that the International Development Committee will publish its report on private sector development before the recess? Will he explain what he proposes to do, through his Department, to unlock foreign investment and, in particular, domestic indigenous investment from entrepreneurs in poor countries? That is an essential means of expanding the private sector and delivering growth, which will bring down the levels of poverty.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work in chairing the International Development Committee and for his kind words. In the case of Ethiopia, we have found another route for our aid, through the basic services grant, so that poor people are not punished because of the problems of governance there. In Uganda, a political settlement is needed. In my view, that requires the five indicted leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army to be hauled off to the International Criminal Court where they belong, because that would unlock an end to the terrible crisis that has affected so many people there.
	The head count restrictions will have an impact on the way in which we work. The permanent secretary is also looking at how we are going to make that happen. I know that he gave evidence to the Select Committee the other day. On the multilateral system we will become more selective about where we put our money. The question that I will increasingly askas the House would wishis, What effect will we get from putting our money into this route, as opposed to that one?
	I look forward with great interest to the private sector development report. Good governance is fundamental to unlocking the investment that the hon. Gentleman and I want to see. If there is peace, security, stability and good governance, people are much more likely to invest their own money and that of other people.

Several hon. Members: rose

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that there is a further statement to follow, as well as the main business. I therefore request that Members ask just one supplementary question, and that the Minister gives just a brief reply. In that way, as many people as possible will be able to catch my eye.

Ann McKechin: I welcome the White Paper. My right hon. Friend rightly emphasises the need for good governance and transparency, but I am sure that he will appreciate that this is a two-way process. Will he outline how our Government will increase their accountability to the beneficiaries of our aid? How will the accountability of multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund be increased?

Hilary Benn: The Government will achieve that by publishing more information about the work that we are doing, including the new commitments that I set out today in the White Paper, as well as what we are doing already. We will also achieve that aim through the support that we shall give to civil society, whose members can not only hold their Governments to account but talk to us about the way in which we provide support. In relation to the multilateral institutions, we are publishing for the second year in a row a report on the stance that we have taken in our discussions at the World Bank. Indeed, we have been pushing for greater transparency in the way in which the World Bank runs. It is right and proper that people should be able to see how these multilateral institutions work and make their decisions, because they receive a very large amount of our money.

Tony Baldry: The New Partnership for Africa's DevelopmentNEPADwas meant to be a compact in which we gave more money and aid and African countries enhanced their governance. What is the Secretary of State's assessment of the progress of the NEPAD initiative? He rightly referred to the importance of parliamentarians, and the civil capacity fund for Africa is obviously very good news. However, is there not also work there for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association? As we went through Africa, those of us who were on the Select Committee in the previous Parliament foundas I am sure those on the present Committee willthat parliamentarians were often left out of civil society. Their capacity seriously needs enhancing.

Hilary Benn: NEPAD has made progress most of all on the peer reviews. A couple of them have now been published and those of other countries are coming through the system. In the end, people will judge how effectively the results of those reviews are implemented. I specifically mentioned parliamentarians in relation to the governance and transparency fund because I agree with the hon. Gentleman that parliamentarians play a very important part in holding Governments to account. We will therefore look into how the fund can work to support them.

David Marshall: I welcome the White Paper and know that my right hon. Friend is aware that some of the most fragile states in the world are in the Pacific region. The declining UK diplomatic representation in the south Pacific, among some of the most pro-British small nations in the world, is a matter of great regret to those peoples. Will my right hon. Friend consider what additional aid can be given to the poorest Pacific islands, which are facing tremendous problems of poverty, remoteness and climate change?

Hilary Benn: We no longer have the programmes in the Pacific region that we had in the past, principally because we are focusing our effortsrightly, in my viewon the poorest countries of the world. However, we continue to contribute to those Pacific countries through our contribution to the multilateral agencies. Just because we do not have a bilateral programme does not mean that we are not providing them with support; we are.

Nick Herbert: The Secretary of State reminded us that the millions of people who die from AIDS, TB and malaria do so as a result of poverty. Is it not also the case that they do so as a result of weak health care systems in developing countries? What balance has he struck between delivering vital drugs through the health care systems of those countries and through non-governmental organisations? Is it not a concern that, if the health care systems remain weak, vital drugs to treat entirely curable diseases such as TB will continue not to reach the people who need them?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. That is why long-term commitments of support to enable developing countries to build their health services are needed. One benefit of a rising aid budget and a 0.7 per cent. commitment is that we can enter into more long-term arrangements with Governments. If they know that they have money coming in, from our contributions and from debt relief, they can plan to train nurses, build clinics and buy drugs that will help to beat those diseases.

Clive Efford: The work of my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on this important issue is a source of pride to all Labour Members. In recent weeks, I have visited a number of schools to pick up buddies that they have made as part of the Make Poverty History campaign. Those young people send the message to me that they want to make poverty history, but they do not want the aid that we provide to have strings attached. Through the White Paper, will my right hon. Friend engage with those schools to foster their interest and support for the Make Poverty History campaign, and make sure that the only strings attached to aid are to ensure that it gets to the people who need it most?

Hilary Benn: I spent some time visiting schools and an impressive group of young people from Tower Hamlets came to the House today to talk about these very issues. We have moved away from economic policy conditionality, because it was the wrong approach. I am unapologetic, however, about asking whether Governments are committed to reducing poverty, whether they uphold transparency and good governance, and whether they will ensure that the money is used for the intended purpose. People expect us to ask those questions, and I have no reluctance about taking decisions on the way in which we give aid on the basis of the answers and our assessment. Ultimately, it is about ensuring that the money that we give makes a difference to people on the ground.

Charles Walker: I thank the Secretary of State for his excellent statement. One way of alleviating poverty in the developing world is to allow farmers in those countries access to the more developed markets of western Europe and north America. What progress is being made in that area at present?

Hilary Benn: The short answer is, not enough. Despite the agreement reached in Hong Kong in December to end export subsidies by 2013, which would help the agreement on aid for trade, we are stuck on the central question of access to agricultural markets, with the three big groupsincluding the larger developing countries, the United States and the European Communityall saying that they have made a good offer and will not move unless others do so. However, that is the key to unlocking opportunities for prosperity for farmers and others in developing countries, and that is why we must keep up the pressure to try to break the logjam and give them the chance that they wantto trade their way to a better life.

John Robertson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and look forward to reading the White Paper. In his statement, he mentioned that everyone should have decent health care and education. Last year, my all-party Nigeria group saw derelict buildings that had once been schools or hospitals where no sustainability had been built into the system to ensure that they continued. What does he intend to do to ensure that money that is invested continues to be invested in years to come?

Hilary Benn: One of the legacies of badly given aid is that donors turned up and built schools and clinics, and went away and said, Hey, we have brought something good to the community. However, there was never any connection to the capacity of the Government of that country to fund and put in staff to maintain the buildings. In the right circumstances, therefore, the best approach is to work with Governments to build their capacity so that they can plan on the basis not only that they will build the school, but that they have the money to employ the teachers, do the maintenance, provide the supplies and make sure that the children are educated.

Pete Wishart: I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman's recent announcement of an Africa compliance panel. As he knows, I have called for that for the past year. I only hope that the panel might be based in Perthshire. What action or sanction will be taken if G8 commitments are not met? What more can be done to ensure compliance with G8 commitments among the international community?

Hilary Benn: The Prime Minister set up the Africa progress panel to increase the political pressure on all of us, both developed and developing countries, to make sure that we honour our promises. It will be chaired by Kofi Annan. It is about keeping up the political pressure, which, along with political leadership, enabled the commitments on aid, debt relief and other matters that have been implemented over the past 12 months to be achieved at Gleneagles last year. Only by keeping up that pressure will we achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Russell Brown: I warmly welcome today's White Paper. I share my right hon. Friend's recollections of the activities of the previous Government, which were not as portrayed by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). My right hon. Friend mentioned UN reform, including central pooled funding and a single plan in each country. Will he expand on that and indicate what further reform he would like in the UN?

Hilary Benn: To take a practical example, in Vietnam, from memory, there are 11 different UN agencies with a budget of about $2 million all pursuing their own objectives. The truth is that the UN should get its act together. Having a single pool of funding in country, with one office, one plan and one person to lead it, would be sensible. That issue and the question of whether central pooled funding should be introduced in the UN development system generally are now being considered by the high level panel on which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor represents us. I very much hope that that will produce a report in the autumn that recommends such change, which could ensure that the UN development system is more effective.

Alistair Burt: Well done to the Secretary of State for his commitment, stewardship of the Department and this White paper. Well done to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) for helping to ensure that international development now has the priority and budget that it always deserved. From talking to colleagues on the continent, it is clear that environmental issues are still a higher priority for them than development issues. How will the Secretary of State ensure that G8 and European Union presidencies will give development issues the same priority as in this country?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. We must make the case that poverty will not be beaten in the developing world unless there is economic development, which must be sustainable economic development. If the rich world thinks that it can turn to the poor world and say, You know the benefits that we had from economic growthyou can't have them, because the world can't cope, the poor world will turn round and say, We're not having that. We must share out the earth's environmental carrying capacity on a more equitable basis. That is the fundamental political problem with natural resources and CO2 emissions. The second argument is that, unless we do that, we will not have a safe and secure world to inhabit, wherever we happen to call home.

Peter Soulsby: I join other Members in warmly welcoming the statement and White Paper. We are all painfully aware that making poverty history is not about quick fixes but long-term commitment and determination. With that in mind, I am pleased by the commitment to development education, the commitment on UK groups building links with developing countries and the expansion of opportunities for young people, especially from diaspora communities, to work in developing countries. What steps are my right hon. Friend and his colleagues taking to ensure that those initiatives are adequately resourced? In particular, what steps will he take to ensure that local authorities have the resources, encouragement and powers to ensure that those initiatives become reality?

Hilary Benn: First, we are increasing funding. We already have a programme to support development education in our schools. It is not just a question of money, but of attitude of mind. I have been to many schools that are using the opportunity of citizenship educationand of studying geography and other subjectsto make sure that the generation growing up understand more about the world of which they will be part. The truth is that they will be taking decisions about the future of our planet when most of us have long gone. It is therefore right and proper that we give them the skills and understanding that they need to make their way in the world and to take the right decisions for the future of our planet.

Henry Bellingham: Zimbabwe was once a great African country with a first-class agricultural system. It has now become a total disaster, with an evil corrupt dictatorship not just persecuting its poorest people, but regularly stealing aid money. How can Britain and Europe make sure that the starving, helpless and poor of Zimbabwe are helped without further bolstering the Swiss bank accounts of Mugabe and his henchmen?

Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of Zimbabwe, which provides a spectacularly bad example of governance. Zimbabwe has suffered above all from a failure of governance over the past 25 years. What do we do? We continue to help feed people through the World Food Programme. We do not give money directly to the Government of Zimbabwe. We have an AIDS programme, because HIV and AIDS are a big problem in Zimbabwe. We work through non-governmental organisations and others. That is a very good example of our determination as a Government to give our aid in different ways according to our judgment of the circumstances, so that the poor of Zimbabwe are not punished because they have a bad Government and we continue to play our part in helping them.

Michael Wills: I welcome the White Paper, and pay tribute to all the efforts of my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on behalf of the world's neediest people.
	Mention has already been made of the iniquitous and unfair world agricultural trading system. I know that the Government have led efforts to reform it, but will my right hon. Friend expand on what pressure he and his colleagues will exert on the other European Union members and the United States in the crucial next few days to bring about the reforms that are so desperately needed, and to make all the other admirable policies work to full effect?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words and especially for what he said about my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who does a wonderful job in supporting me and the Department's work.
	Our principal argument must be that if we are serious about fighting poverty, we need a trade deal. We must persuade people to turn the words that they utter when they make speeches about the importance of that into policies for trade negotiators that will allow progress to be made.
	Europe contains many different countries and agriculture is more important in some than in others. A political debate is taking place about the extent to which Europe should move, but no one should doubt that, if we pass up this opportunity now, we will probably miss the single most important step that we could take at this point to fight world poverty.

Laurence Robertson: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that Africa possesses incredible tourist attractions in its history and natural beauty, yet fails to realise its assets. That is partly because of poor facilitiespoor transport, for instancebut also because of the negative messages that emerge from African countries. People do not think that they should visit Africa, and they do not know what they are missing. What can the Government do to help those countries promote tourism in their areas?

Hilary Benn: I have described the steps that we will take and the work that we are already doing to help countries improve their governance. The best way to put tourists off is to have a war, because no one will visit a country in those circumstances. If there is insecurity or conflict on the streets or a problem involving corruption, people may choose to go elsewhere.
	As the hon. Gentleman suggests, we must also enable people to see Africa in all its complexity. The same applies to other developing countries. Africa is not one continent; it is 54 countries. Ghana, Tanzania, Mozambique and South Africa are making real progress, and many people visit those countries. We want people to visit as tourists, we want people to invest and we want people to trade, because ultimately that will bolster the countries' economies and provide the money that they need to invest in saving people's lives and educating children.

Andrew George: Like others, I strongly endorse the Secretary of State's commitment to good governance and transparency. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that his Department will cease to double count debt cancellation as aid expenditure?

Hilary Benn: With respect, we do not double count debt cancellation as aid expenditure. The Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development does the counting. It produces the overall figures and identifies aid and debt cancellation separately.
	I resolutely reject the argument that debt cancellation does not help. Why will Nigeria be able to send another 3.5 million children to school? Because it has benefited from the biggest single debt deal in African history. Why has Zambia been able to introduce free primary health care in rural areas? It is because of aid and debt cancellation.
	I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument at all. We will continue to give help through both aid and debt cancellation.

Carter Review

Vera Baird: With permission, I wish to make a statement about the publication of Lord Carter of Coles's Review of Legal Aid Procurement, following a statement by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs in the other place earlier today. Copies of Lord Carter's review have been placed in the Printed Paper Office, the Vote Office and the Libraries of both Houses. A joint consultation paper on his proposals has been issued simultaneously by the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Legal Services Commission, copies of which have also been placed in the Printed Paper Office, the Vote Office and the Libraries.
	Lord Carter's report is the product of a year of engagement between a number of stakeholders. The Government, the Legal Services Commission, the Law Society, the Bar Council and the judiciary, individual practitioners and others all played a full part in the discussions that led to his recommendations.
	In his report, Lord Carter identified the importance of publicly funded legal services to ensuring proper access to justice for those in need of advice and representation, and for those who are charged with criminal offences. He rightly refers to the high quality of our legal system.
	At a time of finite public resources and ever-increasing pressure on the legal system, it is vital that we review our arrangements for the provision of legal aid. For some time, under successive Governments, they have not fully served either the public or the clients of the system. Changing the way in which we purchase legal advice services is a key element of our desire to reform the criminal justice system and provide better outcomes in civil and family justice. I know from experience the difficulty of balancing all the competing factors to ensure that legal aid is fair to the vulnerable, fair to taxpayers, fair to defendants and fair to practitioners.
	Lord Carter concluded that there must be a fundamental change in the way in which legal aid services are procured, so that clients have access to good quality legal advice and representation, so that a good quality, efficient supplier base thrives and remains sustainable, so that the taxpayer and the Government receive value for money, and so that the justice system is more efficient, effective and simple. He recommends a new system for the provision of criminal legal aid in which the professions ensure proper quality control over their members and lawyers are as far as possible paid on the basis of completion of a case rather than according to the number of hours for which they have worked, and are encouraged to be as efficient as possible by being able to compete for work on the basis of price.
	Lord Carter proposes that the criminal legal aid market should be restructured and suggests a timetable. April 2007 should see the introduction of a new fixed fee scheme in police stations. It should also see changes to standard fees for magistrates court cases, changes to the advocates' graduated fee scheme in the Crown court and an extension of the graduated-fee scheme to litigators in the Crown court. For very high-cost cases, the Legal Services Commission should introduce an enhanced quality threshold and use a higher level of in-house expertise and closer management to secure greater control over the individual case contracting regime. Lord Carter proposes that that be achieved by the end of the financial year 2007-08 through the LSC contracting solely with a panel of suppliers. Panel membership would be determined through demonstration of an appropriate enhanced level of quality, as well as through competition. Price competition should be introduced in 2009, with quality assured suppliers bidding for multiple units of cases in police stations which they would usually take to the magistrates courts and/or Crown courts.
	The transition to a more market-based approach comes alongside changes to the regulation of legal services, as outlined in the draft Legal Services Bill. Taken together, those developments will mean change for the professiona degree of restructuring for solicitors and barristers alike. The changes must be managed in a way that ensures continuing quality and choice for the public, while giving the professions time and, if necessary, support to adjust to the new model.
	Lord Carter recognises the need to ensure that providers of legal services continue to serve black and minority ethnic communities and those in less densely populated and rural areas. He strongly acknowledges that one size does not fit all, and makes detailed proposals to ensure the continued improved provision of high quality legal services for all those communities. His report contains detailed recommendations that will help us to devise the criminal justice system that the public expect: one that is simple and speedy, and makes the best use of summary justice.
	For civil and family legal aid, the report provides for a more efficient, client-focused service, concentrating on meeting different local needs. Lord Carter suggests that that will be achieved through the establishment of community legal advice centres and community legal advice networks, which is in line with the Legal Services Commission's strategy for community legal services. Best value tendering for the new centres and participation in the networks should begin in 2009.
	New forms of contracting are expected to promote greater links between civil suppliers and, where possible, greater links with family law suppliers, so that clusters of problems can be dealt with earlier and more effectively to avoid the risk that they multiply and lead to people falling into the social exclusion trap.
	The Legal Services Commission also proposes to move to fixed and graduated fees from April 2007 for a wide variety of civil and family work, and also for most immigration work. That will promote and reward the most effective working by suppliers. The consultation document published alongside Lord Carter's report contains full details.
	Lord Carter estimates that if the reforms had been fully in place in 2005-06, criminal legal aid spending would have been 100 million lower, and that does not take account of the potential further savings from best value tendering. In addition, there would have been a greater proportion of legal aid spent on civil and family matters. By the end of the implementation period, because the reforms will also control unit costs far better than many elements of the current scheme, spending will be lower than it would be without the changes proposed. I also welcome and accept Lord Carter's recommendation for better management and control of spending, including through greater transparency and shared problem-solving between the DCA, the LSC, other Departments and the professions.
	In conclusion, the Government strongly welcome Lord Carter's findings and we have today issued a consultation paper to which I encourage everyone to respond. I look forward to the challenges that are ahead and working with all stakeholders and the Legal Services Commission, the dedication and commitment of whose commissioners and staff will be critical to success. I am immensely grateful to Lord Carter for the work that he has done.

Oliver Heald: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for her courtesy in giving the Opposition early sight of her statement today, and I thank Lord Carter for his meeting with me. We welcome the publication of the report and will study the proposals in detail. We hope that it will spark a debate that can provide the basis for a consensus on reform of the legal aid system that is built to last.
	Legal aid remains the cornerstone of our criminal justice system, providing access to justice for millions of people, but today it is in crisis. In 1997, the Government promised to reform legal aid in order to
	achieve value for money for the taxpayer and the consumer.
	Instead, we have seen a 35 per cent rise in the overall legal aid budget, while at the same time spending on civil legal aid, excluding asylum, is down by a quarter. That in turn is damaging access to justice for many of the most vulnerable people in society. So we all agree that reform is necessary.
	We endorse Lord Carter's emphasis on the need to tackle very high cost cases, which account for around half of current criminal legal aid budget. In that context will the Under-Secretary tell us what steps the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the British Transport police intend to take in order to respond to the challenge of managing the prosecution of cases more efficiently and effectively? Does she agree that in addition to the measures proposed by Lord Carter, more effective case management by courts is essential if costs are to be kept down?
	Much is made of the fees earned by barristers at the top end of the scale in very high cost cases, but the Under-Secretary will be aware of the concerns among barristers and solicitors about many more in the profession who rely on legal aid work, yet who barely earn enough to get by. Does she accept that that has already resulted in fewer lawyers choosing publicly funded legal aid work as a career, which in turn is placing huge strains on the civil legal aid system? The Under-Secretary will know that the Bar Council is concerned by the further delays before help is provided for those doing those shorter cases. The London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association has said today that Lord Carter's proposals:
	will stop the recruitment of able and passionate solicitors to this area of legal practice.
	How does the Under-Secretary respond to such concerns?
	There are other parts of the statement, and Lord Carter's report, that give rise to concernsin particular, the likely impact on the network of high street solicitors and law centres, such as the one that I visited in Tower Hamlets recently. In particular, will the Under-Secretary respond to the fears expressed by many that Lord Carter's proposals on procurement sound the death knell for small high street solicitors undertaking legal aid work? This morning, the vice-president of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association said that the proposals were:
	an enormously bureaucratic and costly re-organisation of the supplier base which is the high street solicitor that will lead, perhaps, to many of them closing.
	What steps do the Government intend to take to deal with those concerns and to allay fears that advice deserts will emerge?
	Page 52 of Lord Carter's report refers to the needs of vulnerable black and ethnic minority clients. She will be aware that many small high street solicitors tailor their services to the needs of black and ethnic minority clients. However, under Lord Carter's plans, those are precisely the types of firm that risk being squeezed out of the system and, in the process, significant role models of success in the legal world for minorities will be lost. Does she agree with the Criminal Law Solicitors' Association, which has said that such firms will be disproportionately disadvantaged by Lord Carter's plans?
	Finally, the Minister referred to the publication of a consultation paper on Lord Carter's report. Will the Under-Secretary confirm, therefore, that valuable as his report is, it does not represent the final word, that there is some scope to refine his plans and that the Government will address the genuine concerns of many in the legal profession who want a system that combines both value for money and proper access to justice?

Vera Baird: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the report and his hope, which I share, that it will spark a debate on those important issues. I agree wholly that we need to build a system that will last. The increase in legal aid expenditure since 1997, to which he alluded, is not an isolated example. This morning, I looked at the tables in the fundamental legal aid review document, which show that spending also went up exponentially between 1991 and 1996, so it is clear that successive Governments have not managed to control that elusive budget.
	The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of very high cost cases, and I urge him to read with careI accept entirely that he has not had the slightest opportunity to do sowhat Lord Carter proposes for closer management of such cases, with a higher level of expertise in the LSC to ensure that they are controlled as well as they can be. I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman's point that all that cannot be done through legal aid alone: there is a serious need for the CPS and the other public agencies he mentioned to consider case management. The Carter review contains a quotation from Sir Igor Judge, which gives the judicial attitude to the urgent need for powerful case management. The judiciary are anxious that judges should be free to do that, and of course we entirely encourage it. We are seeking, with the consultation document that will build on Lord Carter's report, to use the new fixed fee regime that he proposes to try to enhance the ability of the judiciary to manage cases properly.
	The hon. Gentleman also referred to the frequently expressed criticism of fat cat barristers who earn enormous amounts of money. I have never been fat myself [ Interruption. ] Neither metaphorically, nor physically, but I am not sure that the House is interested in that. There is some interesting information about lower level members of the Bar in Lord Carter's review. He found that 5 per cent. of those with between one and five years' experience at the Bar were earning 90,000 a year. That seems to be a fine starting salary, although many others do not earn that much. However, that is an issue for those who structure the Bar, and not one that legal aid can tackle directly.
	I accept that the Bar Council would prefer not to delay the catch-up that it thinks should follow from the fact that graduated fee schemes for one to 10-day cases were fixed in 1997. However, a letter from the council this morning states that, as a result of its negotiations with Lord Carter, it acknowledges that process should occur from 2007.
	I do not agree with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that the London Criminal Court Solicitors' Association is right to suggest that the proposals will end recruitment to the public sector. Not a bit of it: he was present at the recent Legal Aid Practitioners Group awards for legal aid lawyer of the year and, like me, can only have been impressed by the calibre of the many excellent young practitioners there. They are fighters, every one of themmuch of the time they are fighting us!and they are coming into the public sector, so I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman said is right.
	I do not agree either that we are about to hear the death knell of high street solicitors. Much concern was aroused by the interim report, which did us all a huge favour by making us refine our thinking. The process of implementation will need a great deal of consultation and care. It is proposed that I should spend a sizeable part of my summer going around providing exactly that, although of course people will also be able to correspond about other matters.
	I heard Greg Powell say on the radio this morning that he thought that the proposals would involve a huge amount of bureaucracy, but the LSC is looking to make savings in that regard worth tens of millions of pounds. It is anxious to have a lighter touch, and of course practitioners want to escape from bureaucracy. The whole point of having fixed fees at the front end of cases across the board is so that there will be no thorny questions about whether a particular mention, application in court or piece of travel and waiting was justified. It seems to me that the fixed fee will mean less bureaucracy.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about black and minority ethnic practitioners and communities. The LSC can and must use its procurement power to ensure that those communities continue to be served fully and properly by appropriate practitioners. I do not accept that practitioners from the black and ethnic minorities will be squeezed out. Lord Carter received legal advice suggesting that no inappropriately heavy burden would fall on them, but I know that serious concerns have been expressed about that.
	I had the pleasure of speaking to the annual conference of the Black Solicitors Network, and I took the opportunity to talk to a number of its members. The network represents a very important and dynamic sector of young black entrepreneurs, and we must take good care of them. I assure the House that we are very much apprised of the need to ensure that they have appropriate career opportunities.
	I can confirm that the report is not the last word on the matter. Lord Carter undertook a very good consultation process that involved all the relevant stakeholders. I know that he spoke to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, and I believe that he spoke to the Liberal Democrats as well. The confidence that the process has given us means that we are able to take on Lord Carter's direction of travel, as it were, but with a clear awareness that there is still a good deal of scope for policy development during the consultation that is to follow.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for her statement and welcome her to her post. I am concerned about accountability in how neighbourhoods provide advice and representation, on legal matters and on issues that at least at first may not involve the law. In my constituency, partly as a result of the behaviour of the local authority, there is a real shortage of competent advice on debt, immigration and other matters. I have not read the report, but will she clarify what accountability mechanism will be put in place to make sure that advice is provided in a neighbourhood? Does it all come down to the LSC, or is there some way for us to ensure that the local authority or some other body can take responsibility for providing advice in a particular community?

Vera Baird: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Neighbourhood accountability may go beyond Lord Carter's remit, but she is right to say that there is a need for an audit process to establish what advice is available for people. I attend the Cabinet Office Committee on social exclusion established by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Exclusion. My input is based on the belief that there is a need for advice to be included in the social exclusion agenda. That goes beyond legal advice, but the LSC is in a good position to ascertain what advice is available and to co-ordinate it more efficiently than has been the case in the past.
	Therefore, I can assure my hon. Friend that the matters that she raises are very much in my mind. They are being considered by the Committee to which I referred, and by the LSC.

David Heath: I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her statement and Lord Carter for his work on the review. I also commend the process so far, which has involved an extremely good level of consultation. I am heartened by the Minister's earlier confirmation that the further consultation process will be genuine, and that comments will be welcomed and taken on board.
	The importance of legal aid is worth underlining yet again. It is a key part of the welfare state, although we probably talk about it less than any other. The squeeze on legal aid budgets over recent years is not the result of inefficiencies in the systemit is largely due to the increase in business caused by the wide panoply of new offences and the increased number of prosecutions taking place. That is what is driving the increase in criminal aid, which in turn has squeezed the availability for legal aid in the civil and family courts.
	The squeeze on legal aid is causing great concern, as access to legal aid is an essential part of a fair and free society. I hope that all hon. Members will agree with that, and that the report's proposals will increase access to legal aid.
	The Minister said that she felt there would be no deterioration in the position of high street practitioners. I hope that she is right, but legal aid in the more rural areasand in some cities toois in a parlous state, with those practitioners who offer criminal legal aid, for instance, being very few and far between. For instance, it is common for there to be only one criminal solicitor available to deal with a particular magistrates court. We therefore have to do something to encourage more practices to release practitioners to do criminal legal aid and to undertake work in the family courts.
	I have a few quick questions for the Minister. First, she was right to emphasise the need for better organisation in our courts, and one factor in that is the court's proximity to the people attending it. Travel to court is a key part of the costs incurred by practitioners, defendants, witnesses and victims. Centralising court facilities leads to an apparent cost saving, but there is a real cost to the people seeking justice. The two need to be in balance, as justice is being taken away from people in many rural communities because courts are being closed down.
	Will the Minister ensure that the financial incentives to finish cases quickly do not prejudice the standard of justice in courts? That is an obvious point but it is terribly important, so it is necessary to make it.
	Will the Government guarantee that defendants can be represented by the same good local lawyer from the beginning to the end of proceedings? That may or may not be implicit in the arrangements as they develop.
	Can we make sure that lawyers undertaking publicly funded work have sufficient recompense to attract them to such posts rather than going into private practice? The hon. and learned Lady may have partly answered that question already.
	Lastly, to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), a process of audit of advice and legal services is needed and Members of Parliament have a critical part to play in it. Often, advice deserts are not in the most deprived communities. The worst thing of all is to be a poor person in a rich community, who does not have access to transport and to high-cost support and will be very much excluded if we are not careful. The hon. and learned Lady's Department needs to work closely with the Minister for Social Exclusion to ensure that a proper audit system is in place. MPs could play a useful part in that process, so will she consider that?

Vera Baird: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and for his praise of the process that has led us to where we are today. I agree that it has been a good process, and I assure him that it will continue to be genuinely consultative.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the increase in criminal legal aid derived from an increase in business. I assume that he meant that more cases are going to court; nor can I exclude the fact that there has been more legislation, so there are more offences and increased complexity. He is right up to a point, but notwithstanding all that, and quite separately from it, the amount of money being paid out to lawyers has increased. I am sure that he is aware of the Cape and Moorhead research, which considered the inevitable impact of more legislation on legal aid, but concludes that there is more to be said on the subject. Everybody wants more business in the criminal courts in the sense that more people should be brought to justice.

David Heath: It would be better if fewer people needed to be brought to justice.

Vera Baird: Indeed.
	A point was put to me about the demise of high street solicitors. I cannot say that they will be unaffected by the review, but Lord Carter's proposals do not mean a big is beautiful situation; they are about tuning the new system to ensure that efficient suppliers of a variety of sizes and structures who have been satisfactorily peer-reviewedI cannot emphasise enough the point that quality is up-front in Lord Carter's proposalsought to be able to succeed under the best tendering model. So, as I said, high street solicitors will not be unaffected but there is no reason to forecast their demise.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to local courts and accepted the need for a balance. Of course, local justice can be good justice, but appropriate facilities are needed, too. Some local court buildings are very old indeed and cannot accommodate modern needs; not only for disabled access, but also for defence witnesses to be kept away from prosecution witnesses and so on. Various moves are afoot. Last Friday, I had the pleasure of visiting the Liverpool community justice project, in which justice simply could not be more local. The project is having a superb impact because it is so well knitted into the surrounding community. Such initiatives are to be praised and encouraged. As ever, we are trying to do everything at once.
	The hon. Gentleman asked that financial incentives should not compromise cases and that the need to fix fees would not undermine a decent pay rate for lawyers. I think that was implicit in what I said. There is no intention to do that; it is everyone's intention that good quality lawyers should continue to be recruited to the public sector. Our courts simply cannot work without themthe hon. Gentleman can rely on that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether a defendant could be represented throughout the proceedings by a good local lawyer. Solicitors will bid for a quantity of police station cases, and the usual model would be that they would take the case through from the police station to the magistrates court and to the Crown Court, if appropriate. There is provision in Lord Carter's recommendations, which I applaud, for consultation on own-client work; that is, somebody who comes under the duty rota scheme by virtue of being locked up at a particular police station but who has another solicitor elsewhere with whom he has some faith. If he were able to rely on that person it could assist the system. There is scope for consideration of such ideas, but the broad intention is that the person who picks up the case at the police station should take it all the way through. High cost cases are the exception. It is proposed that a panel of experts be set up and when it is clear at the police station that the case is a specialist one, it would go directlyas an escape routeto the panel.
	I agree entirely that although it is bad to be poor in a poor area, it is just as bad to be poor in a rich area. The hon. Gentleman will have appreciated from my previous answers that I am very engaged in how advice can assist in dealing with social exclusion. As he understands, a major thrust of the legal aid review is the intention to move money, where and when possible, over to civil sectors so that people can be prevented from going into social exclusion by timely advice about their problems in the first place.

Michael Wills: I add my welcome to the statement and to the delivery of this much needed review.
	The whole House will recognise the difficulties of reconciling the different imperatives that bear on the issues, but I should be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend will confirm that when she looks further at how to implement the recommendations of the review she will bear in mind that moving to a more market-based approach could result in bottlenecks. She may be aware that I have written on several occasions to her Department about the problems with immigration advice in Swindon. Will she keep a careful eye on making sure that appropriate services are available throughout the process? She will be aware that bottlenecks in immigration advice can have considerable consequences down the line, and clog up the system.
	Secondly, I noted the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about the importance of advice. One way of bearing down on the costs of legal aid is to give proper advice to those who need it, especially the most needful members of our society, before they get into the legal process. However, is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the LSC has withdrawn its support for a potentially valuable project in Swindonan advice centre co-ordinating all the advice bodies in the borough in one building? I understand that the LSC feels that the project is no longer part of its purview, but as a result of its withdrawal, Swindon borough council has been left on its own to deal with it. I should be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend will confirm that as part of the review she will look at ways in which her Department can support the council in developing that valuable project.

Vera Baird: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I am aware of his correspondence about bottlenecks and I accept entirely that they can cause considerable knock-on problems. I am apprised of that problemas he requested me to be.
	I cannot comment at all on what has occurred with the LSC and the Swindon advice centre. None the less, I undertake to look into the situation and speak to him about it.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that small market town solicitors are often the lifeblood of local communities and that many small towns could not survive without them? Today's announcement is not good news for many of those small solicitors, particularly paragraph 7, which points out that they will be paid on completion of their case rather than the number of hours they have worked. That will affect incomes. Obviously, large commercial firms will not suffer, nor will many of the larger regional partnerships, but what discussions is the hon. and learned Lady planning with the Law Society about the impact of the proposals on smaller solicitors?

Vera Baird: I do not accept that there will be a dreadful scenario for small town solicitors. I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman's conviction that they are the most important thing in many such towns, although I agree that they are an important part of their fabric.
	The Law Society has of course been very heavily involved with Lord Carter's proposals. It has issued a press release this morning, indicating that it takes the view that
	Lord Carter's proposals, if properly implemented
	can produce
	a system that is financially sustainable in the long term,
	and the society proposes to work constructively with the Government to try to translate those proposals into a system that will succeed on the ground. Of course neither the system nor the consultation will be confined to urban areas, so I think at least over the summer the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we shall look very closely at the problems that he has raised.

Alan Whitehead: I, too, thank my hon. and learned Friend for her statement. What impact does she consider that Lord Carter's proposals will have on the development and regulation of the no win, no fee system? Is it her intention, during the consultation period she has mentioned, to consider those impacts and the regulation of the system outside the legal aid process?

Vera Baird: There are references to the no win, no fee system and a number of other non-legal-aid means of financing cases within Lord Carter's review. When I go out round the country, those who respondincluding practitioners and notforprofit organisations, I imaginewill address their comments to the contents of Lord Carter's report. Although I am not aware of any immediate proposal to revise the current system, any submissions will be taken very seriously.

Sally Keeble: Northampton is one of the legal aid deserts that have been discussed, to such an extent that I have to send constituents to Birmingham or Oxford to get legal help with certain types of case, despite the best efforts of the community legal service. On the development of the network of community legal advice centres, will the CLS or whoever is overseeing it ensure that legal aid deserts are targeted? I make a plea that we should have such a centre in Northampton, so that my constituents can get proper access to justice to help them with their serious cases.

Vera Baird: Clearly, part of the thrust of Lord Carter's report and of the Government's position is that one reason for making the criminal system more efficient is to ensure that more money can be moved over into exactly the kind of work that my hon. Friend is talking about. So I think that I can assure her that that is very much in mind and that her constituency is very much in mind too.

Diana Johnson: Humberside law centre closed in 2005, which has meant that many of my constituents have been unable to access representation in social welfare law. I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend will tell me how the Carter review will address our representation problems in Hull.

Vera Baird: I am aware of the position in Humberside, largely because my hon. Friend initiated a debate in Westminster Hall about the demise of that law centre. I have also had discussions, although only briefly, with the Law Centres Federation leadership about the position in Humberside. I believe that I am meeting my hon. Friend to discuss it further in due course. I understand from the Law Centres FederationI hope I have got this correctlythat most of the contracts with the Humberside law centre have been placed elsewhere, so that there is not a huge loss of representation, but clearly there must be some because my hon. Friend has repeatedly said that something should be done. I look forward to meeting her and hearing more about that.

Ian Lucas: Will my hon. and learned Friend take forward the idea of an audit of advice within particular geographical areas? When I was first elected I was very struck by the multiplicity of agencies and of funding sources that exist in areas, and I am convinced that there is a level of over-provision and overlapping in those sources of advice. Real economies could be made if the local authorities and the Legal Services Commission worked together much more closely.

Vera Baird: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's comments. There was of course auditing of advice by the community legal service partnerships when they were set up, but I think that he is right; not only is there a multiplicity of agencies but there is also a large number of core lines of one sort or other that give advice on debt, housing or consumer affairs. They are lodged in various Departments of Governmentthe Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education and Skills and our own Department. Clearly, the expertise for coordinating the availability of such advice probably lies with the Legal Services Commission, and yes, it is imperative that they are consolidated so that they work in a coherent way, without duplication, and provide an adequate service.

Orders of the Day

NHS Redress Bill [ Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
	 [Relevant documents: Third Report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee, Session 2005-06, HC 754, on Compensation Culture; Fifth Report from the Committee, Session 2005-06, HC 1009, on Compensation Culture: NHS Redress Bill; and the Government's responses thereto, Cm 6784.]

New Clause 1
	  
	General duty to promote resolution under scheme

'A scheme must include provision requiring the scheme authority and the members of the scheme, in carrying out their functions under the scheme, to have regard in particular to the desirability of redress being provided without recourse to civil proceedings.'. [Mr. Simon.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Si�n Simon: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	I am delighted to move the motion, and I declare an interest as a trustee of AvMAaction against medical accidentsthe leading patient safety charity in this country. I speak to the new clause as a Member of Parliament and not on behalf of that organisation, with which I cannot and do not formally speak. However, I know that, like me, AvMA is grateful to the Minister for having listened to our concerns and those of patients across the country, and many other patient and consumer organisations and other stakeholders, about the original provisions of the Bill and for acting on them, as evidenced by not just my new clause but the Government's amendments, both those that they have tabled today and those that were tabled and made in another place. We are also grateful for the Government's attitude in Committee, which I think Members will agree was, broadly speaking, most of the time a very constructive and cooperative place.
	I mentioned the other Government amendments because my new clause makes sense, and has the force that I believe it can have, only if it is viewed in the context of the other amendments tabled, here and in the other place, by the Secretary of State. Collectively, I hope that they represent a tangible and real response to the three big calls that have been made: first, for measures of independence to be brought to bear where necessary to resolve disputed cases within the NHS redress scheme; secondly, for specialist legal advice or representation to be available, where appropriate, to empower patientsI use the word empower rather than entitle, which I know, in the context of this NHS scheme, the Minister does not likewithin this NHS process; and thirdly, for measures to ensure that patient safety lessons are learned and implemented and seen to be learned and implemented.
	By placing a general duty to promote resolution under the scheme, my new clause seeks to ensure that all the provisions already made possible by the other amendments will have to be considered before proceedings can be finalised. The new clause appears to be quite general, bit I think it can be very powerful, because it is an enabling measure that gives force to all the other amendments that have been made, here and in another place. Crucially, it would mean that where the NHS scheme member's initial conclusion is not to offer redress but the patient feels, having received independent, specialist legal advice to that effect, that they should be eligible, consideration would have to be given to the use of joint instruction of medical experts as a means of seeking resolution, becausethe Minister looks at me quizzically, but I know that he will agree with my becauseall possible instruments within the scheme would have to be examined and eliminated before having recourse to civil proceedings. In some disputed cases, that might well result in bringing independence to bear on the assessment of eligibility for redress, rather than just establishing the facts of what happened, as others, not least on the Opposition Benches, have sought.
	In some such disputed cases, it would mean that the patient was empowered through specialist legal advice and representation jointly commissioned from independent sources, but within the scheme. If an independent medical expert assessed that there was negligence and causation, the expectation would be bound to be that there would be an offer of redress.
	The new clause and the amendmentslargely the Government amendmentsmade here and in another place would help to ensure that patient safety lessons were learned and implemented if the independent medical expert identified in the report the salient risk management issues. In other words, the positive experience from the resolve pilot in England and the speedy resolution pilot in Wales would be put to good use, just as I arguedwith some sympathy across the Houseon Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage.
	The crucial point is that the original ethos of the schemeputting the emphasis on the NHS itself and recognising where it has been negligent, and the NHS proactively putting things right and offering redress within its own owned NHS schemewould be safeguarded, empowered and furthered by the new clause. The process that I have described of joint instruction would be necessary only if and when the NHS's assessment did not tally with that of the patient and the legal adviser. That is my interpretation of the overall effect of this enabling new clause and of the combined effect of my new clause with the various Government amendments that it seeks to enable. I would be grateful for a few words from the MinisterI have no doubt that they will be forthcomingabout how that tallies with his interpretation. Kindly, he has already written to me about that so I have an idea of what he might say. Given the effect of the new clause and the amendments that it seeks to enable, I believe that we have the framework of a scheme that could enjoy public confidence and deliver real benefits to patients and the NHS.

John Baron: We have made it clear that we support the sentiment behind the Bill and therefore we have no problem in supporting the sentiment behind the new clause. In many ways, it is inherently obvious and what it says goes without saying. It could be argued that that raises the question of why it has to be included in the Bill. The Minister will be fully aware that we welcome and support the good intentions underlying the redress scheme. Our problem is that we have difficulties with some of the detail and content of the operation of the Government's proposed scheme.
	It is ironic that the new clause refers to
	the desirability of redress being provided without recourse to civil proceedings.
	In many respects, and with due respect, those words could be construed as misleading. If the Government have their way, the redress scheme will replicate the difficulties of the civil litigation scheme instead of representing a genuine alternative to litigation. That is anything but desirable. The Government are proposing that the role of lawyers be extended to any stage prior to the offer, including the joint instruction of medical experts. However, the redress scheme is not conceived as a judicial process, so the question of legal representation should not arise. Legal rights are not being asserted or defended. Thus there will be lawyers involved in a process that is non-determinative and non-binding. The scheme will not ensure the closure, certainty or finality of a court process. It will attract the problems of civil legal proceedings, such as expensive lawyers, protracted cases and complexity, without the good aspects of the judicial process, such as finality and independence. It is, in many respects, a lose-lose situation.
	I suggest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon)I think that he almost conceded this point in his remarksthat the new clause is legally meaningless. As a matter of statutory construction, it merely provides for an expression of good intent. It does not bestow any legal rights. It neither confers a power nor prescribes a duty. Instead, it expresses a requirement that there must be regard to
	the desirability of redress being provided without recourse to civil proceedings.
	In legal terms, it is meaningless. It is not enforceable and would not appear to give rise to legal remedies, whether in public law or private law. In many respects, his new clause is empty. It does not bring anything new to the Bill or to the present situation as it stands. The NHS Litigation Authority, for example, has always had the power to settle cases. The health service has always had the power to resolve claims without recourse to civil proceedings. In short, because the provision will have little basis in reality if the Government have their way, we suggest that the new clause is unnecessary. It is a bit of waste and so we will not waste the House's time in forcing a vote on it.

Andy Burnham: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) for the constructive way in which has engaged with me and the Department on the Bill. I thank him for facilitating the meeting that we held with AvMA between the conclusion of the Committee and today's proceedings. To complete the tribute to him, I should compliment him on his parliamentary drafting skills, which are clearly excellent.
	As I understand it, the new clause imposes a general duty to promote resolution under the scheme. Under the new clause, a duty will be imposed on scheme members and the scheme authority to have regard, when carrying out their functions under the scheme, to the desirability of settling the case. Scheme members and the scheme authority should have particular regard to the desirability of settling under the scheme, rather than leaving cases to be pursued through the courts.
	I welcome the new clause and the approach that my hon. Friend seeks to achieve through it. He is right to say that it should be seen in the context of the Government amendments. I should say to hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), that we have listened between the Committee stage and the Report stage. We have taken on board comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House and we believe that the Bill will be strengthened through making those amendments. In my view, the new clause reinforces the positive front-foot spirit that we want the Bill to encourage.
	The Bill and the redress scheme to be established under the powers in the Bill aim to open up access to justice for the less articulate, the less wealthy and those who traditionally would have been fed up and abandoned the legal process before a case was completed. Under the new clause, if providers of NHS services believe that there might be a case of negligence, they would be expected to take cases forward. An active approach to redress will be required under the scheme. To be effective, it is important that the NHS is not defensive. The NHS must do all that it can to identify and, where appropriate, resolve cases falling under the scheme.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington was absolutely right to say that the spirit of the Bill is about empowering patients, providing information to them and ensuring that we address their needs when harm has been done. I urge him to see the Bill in the context of other reforms that the Government are making in the national health service to ensure that it is a service that focuses on the individual patient and that patient's experience of the health service, and on ensuring that, when things go wrong, redress to the patient is the thing that matters. I am confident that the NHS redress scheme has the potential over time to effect culture change in the NHS, although I readily acknowledge that that is never an easy thing to achieve. There will be scheme members who are already taking an active approach to complaints and to clinical negligence cases. Some organisations will be prepared to be open and honest, and will embrace the principles of the redress scheme, but there will be others who may continue to be defensive, drag their heels and have a less than positive approach to these matters. We need to do all that we can to ensure that that does not happen.

Si�n Simon: Does my hon. Friend agree that although the new clause is subtle, and its scope and extent may not therefore be immediately apparent to everybody, it is a powerful and significant addition to the Bill because it fundamentally changes the obligations on scheme members? It is not at all empty or meaningless, as the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) claimed. It is subtle, for sure, but it is powerful and complex, and it fundamentally alters the presumptions that will now legally have to inform the actions and attitudes of scheme members.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend sums up the new clause extremely well. It is not at all empty or superfluous, as the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) sought to claim. It does indeed involve a wide, general duty, but it sets the whole tone for how scheme members should carry out their duties and use the measures and avenues that the scheme puts at their disposal. In making decisions, they are at all times legally required to consider the desirability of concluding matters under the scheme. I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman the word concluding, because there is a need for finality, and for giving patients an early apology and explanation of the steps being taken to prevent incidents from happening again. All that is enshrined in the new clause.
	I am anxious to avoid cases being brought under the scheme, only for some of the old thinking to prevail so that at the point at which they may be settled they are pushed into the legal process. That would lead to duplication of expense and resource, which would not be in the interests of the taxpayer. I believe that we will avoid that by having a clause that promotes the desirability of settling. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House can think of cases, not only in the NHS but in other parts of the public sector, in which individuals have been stonewalled and pushed into pursuing a legal action against a public body, possibly in the hope that they will get fed up and give up, having been ground down by the seemingly interminable process in which they find themselves. That process, which comes about because individuals in organisations will not accept that they have made mistakes and apologise for them, can be extremely wasteful of public resources. It can also ruin people's lives because they become consumed by a case that ultimately has to be pursued through the courts. As I understand my hon. Friend's new clause, it is precisely that situation that it seeks to avoid.
	The new clause signals that the redress scheme is not simply a process parallel to that in the courts but is intended to be the primary means by which disputes arising out of NHS hospital services are, where reasonably practicable, to be resolved, rather than leaving cases to be pursued through the courts. It is drafted in general terms, imposing a general duty to promote resolution. My expectation is that at each stage of the proceedings, the scheme member and/or the scheme authority, if they are considering giving up on the scheme for a specific case, must have regard to the desirability of settling under the scheme. At that point they should consider the means that they have at their disposal, such as the joint instruction of medical experts, and positively consider whether it would be right to take that course of action given the desirability of settling and the awareness that the case may continue by the legal route.
	The new clause is entirely in keeping with the spirit of the Bill that we have put before the House. It is consistent with the open learning culture that we want to see in the NHS, in which mistakes are identified and acted on at an early stage and in which redress is offered as early as possible. In reinforcing that duty, the new clause adds significantly to the Bill, and I am pleased to signal to my hon. Friend that the Government are prepared to accept it.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 3
	  
	Redress under scheme

Andy Burnham: I beg to move amendment No. 8, page 3, line 7, leave out 'and'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 9 and 10.
	Amendment No. 4, in clause 6, page 4, line 23, at end insert
	'(g) about the publication of a report of the independent investigation in accordance with paragraph (a)'.
	Government amendments Nos. 11 and 16 to 18.

Andy Burnham: In Committee, the point was well made, particularly by the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher), that patients harmed during their NHS care often say that they do not want it to happen to anyone else. I have never been at odds with that statement. Those are normally the first words out of the mouths of people presenting at our constituency surgeries when they seek to pursue a case and confront the NHS with the harm that they have suffered through its failings. For many individuals, redress and closureto use that terrible wordmay often mean being clear in the knowledge that measures have been or will be taken to ensure the mistake does not happen again.
	I was asked by the hon. Lady and others to consider an amendment to the Bill to provide for a report on action to be taken to prevent similar cases arising in the future, and for that report to be made available where appropriate. I am pleased to say that, having considered this matter carefully, I have tabled such an amendment. The amendment, to clause 3(2), provides that redress will now ordinarily include the giving of a report on the action that has been or will be taken at local level to prevent similar cases arising.
	As was accepted in Committee, there will be occasions where mistakes can simply be ascribed to genuine human errormistakes where no procedural changes need to be made and where a report of this type will not be appropriate. As I said in Committee, we must be careful about placing extra administrative burdens on the NHS. I believe that the hon. Lady accepts that caveat. In these specific types of circumstance, the scheme may provide that a report will not be necessary, although ordinarily such a report will now be provided. Therefore, not only will scheme members publish an annual report about lessons to be learned from cases under the scheme, under clause 10, but the redress offered to individuals under the scheme will now ordinarily include a report on the specific action to be taken to prevent a similar mistake happening again in that patient's individual case. I think that that was what the hon. Lady was urging me to do, and she was right to do so.
	On amendments Nos. 4, 10 and 11, I listened carefully to what was said in Committee, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), about the reasons why investigation reports should be provided to individuals if requested. He focused on the importance of providing the full facts, not only to those to whom offers are made under the scheme, but to those to whom an offer is not made and whose case is terminated. He spoke about the sense of grievance that people may experience if they are not eligible for redress and he explained why they should, if they so wished, be provided with the facts and the outcome of the investigation, so that they could understand why they were not entitled to the redress that they sought.
	Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 require the scheme to provide for the findings of an investigation to be recorded in a report, and for the report to be made available to the individual seeking redress on request. As I stressed in Committee, clause 3(2) already ensures that an explanation will ordinarily be provided under the redress scheme. It will be a full explanation, and we envisage that in a number of casesparticularly the more straightforwardthe patient will be satisfied with that explanation. We want to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy for scheme members, and we do not wish to impose on them the extra burden of providing the investigation report in every case. In someperhaps manycases, an explanation may be adequate, but our amendments ensure that, if it is requested, the investigation report will ordinarily be provided.
	The amendments enable the scheme to provide that the report need not be made available before an offer is made, or before proceedings are terminated. That, too, is intended to reduce the administrative burden on scheme members. Providing investigation reports at an earlier stage may result in increased correspondence and delay. It is envisaged that when the offer of redress is made, a copy of the investigation report will be sent to the individual, if they request it. That will give the individual a complete set of documentation that they can consider with their legal adviser when the offer under the scheme is assessed.
	The amendments enable the scheme to specify other circumstances in which reports need not be provided. That covers rare cases, such as those in which the person seeking redress is not the patient, so it is considered appropriate to withhold certain confidential health information. Including in the Bill an explicit requirement that investigation reports generally be provided to individuals is in the spirit of openness that the scheme seeks to engender. That will reinforce our messages about more open apologies and explanations.
	In Committee, the Bill was criticised because it was said that the investigative process could not be transparent if its findings were not open. I hope that the amendments satisfy hon. Members that we fully intend the investigative process to be transparent. There is no question but that investigation reports will generally be available, if requested. That will be in addition to the explanation provided to the individual complainant. I would like to make it clear that the investigation report will not be kept back on the ground that it is privileged, nor will it be claimed that investigation reports are without prejudice and inadmissible in any subsequent legal action. That matter was raised in Committee by the hon. Members for Billericay (Mr. Baron) and for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), and I am happy to give an assurance on that point.
	The power in proposed new subsection (2B) is an enabling power. Under the scheme, no report need be provided until an offer is made, or until proceedings under the scheme are terminated. As I have said, the intention is to reduce the administrative burden on scheme members, but in clause 15 we have a specific power to make different provision for different cases, and to exercise powers subject to exceptions or
	in relation to any particular case or class of case.
	The power to restrict the provision of investigation reports may therefore be exercised only in relation to particular cases or a class of cases. Our intention is that the power will not be exercised in cases in which it is appropriate for a joint medical expert to be instructed. However, it does not prevent investigation reports from being provided until the final stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington was concerned about that problem, but I can assure him that the Government amendments do not require reports to be provided at the end of the process in all cases. There is flexibility in the Bill so that investigation reports can be provided to individuals at an earlier stage if that is deemed necessary. He was right to press me on the issue, because if people are to make an informed judgment on the instruction of a joint medical expert they need to see the contents of the investigation.
	The Government amendment further weakens the need for independent investigationsa subject that we will debate in the next group of amendments. However, there is no question but that investigations will be open. The actions of scheme members in conducting the investigation, the scope of the investigation and the processes followed will be open and subject to scrutiny. We have introduced a general duty to promote resolution by accepting new clause 1, which deals with the desirability of settling, and the amendment clarifies the need for openness and transparency. Taken together, the provisions strengthen further the NHS redress scheme.
	Turning now to Opposition amendment No. 4, hon. Members will realise from my earlier comments that I agree that investigation reports should generally be made available to individuals. I am afraid to tell the hon. Member for Billericay that I reject his proposal for a number of reasons, although I accept that it attempts to achieve a similar goal to our provisions. First, Government amendments Nos. 10 and 11 go further than his amendment, which enables the scheme to provide for reports to be made available but does not require it to do so. If the power is not exercised, the scheme could not make provision for the publication of investigation reports. The Government amendments require the scheme to provide for reports generally to be made available when requested.
	Secondly, the amendment refers to
	the publication of a report,
	but I do not believe that publication is appropriate. Investigation reports deal with an individual's health care and contain personal, often confidential, information. It is right that they should be made available to the individual whose health care has resulted in harm, but it is not right that they should be more widely available. Even if anonymised, some scheme members will have so few redress cases, or so few cases of the kind described, that the individual patient could be identified in a published report.

Steve Webb: We obviously accept that the publication of a report on an specific case could reveal an individual's details, but if the NHS scheme repeatedly finds categories of problemsclearly, we hope that the national patient safety agency or another body would identify such categories anywayis there a mechanism for systematic learning from groups of cases when confidentiality is not an issue?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. I can reassure him that there is provision under the Bill for such a report to be compiled on an annual basis by scheme members. Under clause 10, duties are imposed on members of the NHS redress scheme. Subsection (2)(j) contains a requirement to produce an annual report and the lessons to be learned from it. We are making a further amendment on that point.
	There is an expectation that scheme members will look in the round at cases that they have dealt with in the past year under the NHS redress scheme and, as the hon. Gentleman says, draw general conclusions and lessons from such cases and put that information into the public domain for local people to consider. However, in response to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Billericay, we argue that it would be wholly inappropriate for the report on an individual's health care to be placed in the public domain by an NHS trust. An individual may choose to do that following the receipt of such a report, but that could not be mandated under the Bill. The general point made by the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) is picked up by the Bill further on.
	The third problem with amendment No. 4 is the reference to independent investigation. I consider this inappropriate because we do not intend that there should be an independent investigation. We will discuss the issues around independence in due course, but for the three reasons that I have outlined, I reject the amendment.
	Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 show the Government's intention to require a member of the redress scheme to prepare and publish an annual report about cases falling under the scheme and the lessons to be learned from themthe report that I described a moment ago to the hon. Member for Northavon. I gave assurances about that in Committee.
	However, clause 10(2)(j) states that a scheme may
	require a member of the scheme to prepare and publish an annual report about such cases and the lessons to be learnt from them.
	I was asked in Committee by the hon. Members for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) to accept that there should be a guarantee written into the Bill that annual reports will be provided. Being a partisan soul and one who, in very rare circumstances, considers himself likely to accept Conservative amendments to any Government legislation, I find myself in an extraordinary position. The hon. Gentlemen made a reasonable suggestion, and the amendments that we have tabled are a response to their sensible argument and the constructive discussions that we had.
	Indeed, it is desirable that such a report should be a requirement under the Bill, as suggested by the hon. Member for Northavon and the two Conservative Members. We are happy to amend the Bill to make that a requirement of membership of the NHS redress scheme. The word may has been replaced with must and the scheme must now require scheme members to publish annual reports on cases dealt with under the scheme and lessons to be learned from them.
	I have covered all the Government amendments. We will resist amendment No. 4.

John Baron: As we know, the amendments deal with the publication of reports and the limitation on their disclosure. We have no problem with Government amendment No. 9. It is important that lessons are learned, so a report to that effect should be produced and encouraged. Our concern is with Government amendment No. 11.
	Our approach to the preparation of reports and their disclosure is relatively simple. We propose that the investigation should be limited to a fact-finding exercise. That is a discussion that we will come to later on a different group of amendments. We propose that in every case a report should be made of such an investigation and made available to the person concerned in any event, whether or not compensation is sought and whether or not an offer is accepted. If we believe that the culture of the NHS needs to change and that we need a more open, transparent and robust investigation of the facts, it is logical to expect that reports in all cases should be made available to the patients. That is what our amendment No. 4 aims to achieve.
	When the stage is reached at which any offer is made, then in any reports concerned with assessment of liability the usual professional practice in respect of privilege would apply. In other words, the practice where a client and a lawyer consider the client's legal liabilities remains confidential to the client and the lawyer. This solution is a logical consequence of separating fact finding from fault finding.
	The Government's solution to that is partly set out in amendment No. 11. It refers to an investigation report, but it is not clear whether that report is fact finding, fault finding or both. I ask the Minister to reflect on that as it creates a functional incoherence that was described in another place as a dog's breakfast.

Andy Burnham: It is important to be clear on that point. My understanding is that the investigation report is the document that would be prepared by the scheme member for the NHS Litigation Authority to use when considering the conduct of the investigation and the issues arising as regards quantum and liability. That document should ordinarily be provided to the individual seeking redress.

John Baron: I thank the Minister for that clarification, which prompts a further question. The Minister says that the report would be produced in any case because it would be the report on which the NHSLA would base its assessment, as opposed to its determination, of liability. Under amendment No. 11, the report need not be shown before an assessment is made, where proceedings are terminated, or in other as yet unspecified circumstances. If the report is going to be produced anyway, why should not it be made available to the patient, given that we are trying to encourage a culture of openness within the NHS and that no added bureaucracy or cost would be involved? The Government's proposal does not guarantee the disclosure of the report in every case. It is the opposite of the openness and transparency that we propose, which is needed if we are to transform the culture of the NHS. What does the Minister have to fear from patients receiving a report at the end of the fact-finding stage regardless of whether an offer is subsequently made?

Andy Burnham: I think that I have made this clear, but I am happy to do so again. In providing an offer of redress, at the end of the process the scheme would seek, if appropriate, to give the individual an apology, an explanation, a statement or a report of what action will be taken to prevent similar adverse incidents happening again, as well as a copy of the investigation report. That is ordinarily what would happen. Were a financial offer to be appropriate, that would be included too. That would be the package of redress.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) has raised certain points privately and in Committee. He asked whether in the more complex cases, particularly where the instruction of a joint medical expert might arise, the patient would need to see the investigation report at that point. I take his point. However, in order to minimise bureaucracy and correspondence, the general intention is that all that information will be disclosed and provided to the individual at the end of the process. We believe that that is ordinarily the right way to conclude matters.

John Baron: I thank the Minister for that, but ask him to re-examine Government amendment No. 11(2B), which says:
	A scheme may provide that no copy of an investigation report need be provided...before an offer is made...in such circumstances as may be specified.
	That needs clarification. I think that the Minister is saying that the investigation report produced at the end of the fact-finding stage would be made available to patients if they so requested. If that is not the correct position, he has an opportunity to put it right and to clarify what amendment No. 11(2B) means.

Andy Burnham: It is helpful to clarify those points. I said that (2B) would be necessary to cover rare cases, for example, when the person who seeks redress is not the patient and it is considered appropriate to withhold some confidential health information. I want to emphasise that the scheme is flexible. There is provision for investigation reports to be released earlier in the process to individuals when the merits of the case require it. However, they would generally be provided at the end. There is, therefore, flexibility, but the Bill sets out what will happen in the normal course of events.

John Baron: Doubtless we will revert to the matter later. There is no point in questioning the Minister further. He has attempted to clarify the position, but a few questions remain about when and under what circumstances a report would be withheld from the patient.
	It goes without saying that we support the proposal to prepare and disclose the report, but we oppose any unspecified and undefined overriding discretion to refuse to disclose such a report. That would not reflect patient priorities or help to change the culture of the NHS to make it a more open and transparent investigation. It would not help patients in their search for not only an explanation and an apology, but a simple and honest investigation of the facts. I am sure that we will revert to the point later.

Sandra Gidley: I welcome especially amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 and other consequential amendments. As the Minister said, we discussed the subject at some length in Committee. He seemed genuinely engaged and said that he would reconsider the matter. I therefore thank him for doing that because it is the first time that that has happened to me in my six years in this place.
	I am delighted that the Bill includes a clear statement that a report should be produced on action to prevent a recurrence of similar cases. As the Minister says, people mainly want to know that the likelihood of what happened to them recurring will be reduced. Many people's prime motivation is not money. We need to be clear about that in our discussions today.
	I, too, am concerned about Government amendment No. 11, especially proposed new subsection (2B) to clause 6. The Minister claims that there is some flexibility and that the general aim is to provide a report, but it is still not crystal clear in what circumstances the report will be provided when the scheme is about to be terminated or an offer has been made. Some guarantees about that would be welcome because, although I do not doubt the Minister's good intentions, the Bill now includes a clause that will enable future legislators and Governments to take a step back from what the Minister appears to claim. That is worrying.
	I, too, regard it as fundamental that a copy of the investigation report is available to all parties, bringing together the facts of the case as soon as possible so that everybody can reach a clear decision about what has gone wrong and the action that needs to be taken. The facts need to be on the table before we move to the next stage. Liberal Democrat Members disagree with the Government because we believe that an independent, separate stage is vital to the long-term success and acceptability of the scheme. Sadly, there will probably be further disagreement about that, but I shall not repeat the arguments at this stage.
	I am worried that the report is available only on request. Although the ability to ask for a report is a step forward, I believe that the emphasis is slightly wrong. As has been said, it is not clear what extra bureaucratic burden making available a report, which has already been prepared, puts on the NHS. What reassurances will there be that patients under the scheme will even know that they have a right to ask for the report. Will that be part of the explanation process? How will they become aware of that? There is a host of legislation, but there is also a great deal of ignorance among the public about what is and what is not available. At the very least, there needs to be a clear procedure for informing a patient about any report. Perhaps there should be an opt-out rather than an opt-in, because I fully accept that there might be a small number of cases where patients, for a variety of possible reasonsthey might have had a mental health problem associated with the report, or they might not want to be reminded of thingsare not interested and do not want to see it. However, everybody should know that such a measure is available and be able to access it.
	Amendment No. 4 has cross-party and independent support. It makes it clear that there needs to be an independent investigation and that a report of any such investigation needs to be published. It also makes it clear that that needs to be an integral part of the process, rather than merely of the end of the proceedings. The Minister has clarified that point.
	Although I welcome the Government amendments, there are still a few small areas where refinements could be made to make the final version of the Bill clearer.

Richard Taylor: I, too, welcome the Minister's comments on openness, which is essential. I welcome the fact that the report will be available, if requested, and I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) that the right to get that must be widely publicised and known. The need for a report of the fact-finding investigation has been emphasised to me several times recently. Healthcare Commission reports have been seen by the claimant and have been very definitely disagreed with for gaps and errors, and that has led to discussion, so it is crucial that this report is available.
	I am also unhappy about proposed new subsection (2B) in amendment No. 11, because I am not sure whether the Minister has sufficiently reassured me yet. Are there still exceptions at the point between the investigation and the offer? If the complainant requests the report at that time, does he still have the right to have it before the offer is made, or are there circumstances in which the report would be withheld from the complainant at that time?

Nick Hurd: I rise to support amendment No. 18 and to place on the record my gratitude to the Minister for having had, like the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), my first experience of a Government Minister actually listening to meunlike at the current moment. The amendment might change only one small wordmay becomes mustbut that is the right thing to do, because it sends a stronger signal about the Government's intentions and, as the Minister probably recognises, the central challenge here is how to generate trust in the Government's proposals. Central to that is the perception of transparency and the sending of a signal that the Government understand what motivates people in this context. The Minister and other Committee members were very clear that a large part of people's motivation is to try to make sure that what they suffered is less likely to happen to other people. An annual report will play a part in that process. I also congratulate the Minister on listening to the arguments made in Committeeprincipally by the hon. Member for Romseyin favour of stiffening the requirements of explanations to include reports on further actions taken, where appropriate.
	May I press the Minister on one point? In Committee, he was concerned about the administrative burden that this might involve the system in. Is he any clearer on the figureshe did not have them to hand in Committeeas to what proportion of cases, on a current run rate of about 5,000 cases a year, are down to human error or basic actions that would not require a report of the kind under discussion?

Andy Burnham: I am pleased to have provided the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) with a first. I find it hard to believe that that was the first occasion when such an offer was made to her, but never mindI am happy to do the honours.
	I want to respond positively to the points that have been made. As the Bill makes clear, a scheme must provide for investigation reports to be available on request, as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) acknowledged, but we recognise that that might not be appropriate in some cases, particularly those in which patient confidentiality or data protection issues are involved. In our view, to adopt a rigid approach in primary legislation would be a mistake, but as I said in response to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), the intention is that the report that the scheme member makes available to the NHS Litigation Authority would ordinarily be the self-same report provided to the individual patient, on request, at the end of the process.
	On the points raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), we clearly must have regard to the administrative burden that primary legislation will place on scheme members. It would be a mistake to make the Bill so rigid as to increase the potential burden on individual scheme members, which is why we have sought to retain some flexibility. Some of these matters will indeed be dealt with through the regulation-making process, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be further consultation with Members and within the NHS to get the balance right. The balance that we seek is openness and transparency for the patient and the right to see the details of their case as provided to the NHS Litigation Authority, while at the same time not creating a scheme that is so rigid that it churns round paperwork and is unnecessarily bureaucratic.

John Baron: Can we be absolutely clear about this point? I and other Members have tried to question the Minister on it and we are having a little trouble pinning him down. We all agree that an investigation report will be produced at the end of the fact-finding stage. Can he confirm that it will be made available just to those patients who request it, and that there will be no exceptions to that rule? If that is so, what is the function of proposed new subsection (2B) in amendment No. 11?

Andy Burnham: Of course, the report is not independent, as the hon. Gentleman just claimed, but the report of the scheme member to the NHS Litigation Authority. The purpose of proposed new subsection (2B) is to address the point that I made a moment ago. Ordinarily, most cases will not deserve a flurry of paperwork as the investigation goes on; many will be relatively straightforward. At the point at which redress is offered, the package that the individual receives will include: an explanation; if necessary, an apology; as other amendments that we have tabled make clear, an explanation of how lessons will be learned and action taken to prevent similar events from happening again; an offer of financial compensation; and, on request, a copy of the investigation report.
	A scheme member cannot opt out of that package, because the Bill places such a requirement on them. However, paragraph (b) of proposed new subsection (2B) allows for other circumstances, and in doing so deals with the issues raised by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest and the question of confidentiality. My guess is that the number of such cases would be small, but there may be occasions when it would not be appropriate for investigation reports ordinarily to be provided. It is right to seek in primary legislation to create the flexibility to allow for such circumstances.

Graham Stuart: I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the representations made in Committee about the production of an annual report. However, if the report of a particular case is made available to a member of the publicwe are all in favour of transparency and openness herehas he considered whether any clinicians named in the report might become more defensive and seek legal or other representation before they participated in what is supposed to be a relatively low-key, speedy and internal investigation? In those circumstances, is there not a danger of undermining the Government's approach to independent fact finding?

Andy Burnham: Possibly, but that is why I would tell the hon. Gentleman that the Conservative amendment should be fiercely resisted. To publish such a report and put it into the public domain would be extremely detrimental and could damage the whole process that we are trying to construct. I believe that I made the point in Committee that there is an important balance to be struck between the wish to be open and transparent and the desire for candour and frankness in the reports. We would not want punches to be pulled in the construction and writing of these reports and we would like things explained as openly as possible, so there is a balance to be struck.
	Having reflected on the debate in Committee, I decided that we should come down in favour of openness and transparency. Indeed, that is the spirit of the scheme and it explains why we tabled the Government amendments to make it clear that the report should ordinarily be provided to the individual. The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point in that the report may contain sensitive information, but I strongly urge him to realise that amendment No. 4 would create a different scheme altogether.

John Baron: Words such as ordinarily need clarifying, particularly with respect to the Government amendment. May I ask the Minister a simple question, to which I would appreciate a simple answer? If patients want to see the investigation reporthe has admitted that it is going to be produced, so we are not talking about added bureaucracywill they be able to see it under all circumstances? I am talking about the patient seeing the report.

Andy Burnham: Obviously, there is no ordinarily. The proposed subsection (2A) makes it clear that on request a report should be provided to the individual seeking redress. Then we have proposed subsection (2B) because, as I have already explained, it would be inappropriate in some cases to provide the report on request. The individual seeking redress may not be the person to whom the health care was delivered and, in rare cases, patient confidentiality may be breached or it may be inappropriate to release sensitive information.
	What I am saying, as clearly as I can, is that we responded to legitimate points and built into the Bill the clear expectation that reports will be provided on request to the patient. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether it is a guarantee that applies to 100 per cent. of cases, I have to draw his attention to paragraph (b). He is right to challenge, but he should not interpret the provisions with such suspicion.
	I hope that it will become custom and practice under the NHS redress scheme always to provide the report. Indeed, I hope that, rather than on request, the report will always be provided to the patient because, as I have said all along, that will facilitate the process of finality and closure. That will be a good thing in my view. In no way are we taking away with one hand what we appear to have given to the hon. Members for Billericay and for Romsey. I hope that he will understand that it is appropriate to include flexibility in the Bill, given that, as was just mentioned by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), such reports could contain highly sensitive information that it would be inappropriate to disclose in every case.

John Baron: I thank the Minister for his clarification. I think that he said at the Dispatch Box that, in all cases where the patient wishes to see the investigation report, the patient will be given that reportunless I am wrong, in which case he may wish to correct that.

Andy Burnham: There will be consultation on paragraph (b), so the regulations that will flow from the clause will precisely tackle some of the other circumstances where it might not be appropriate to provide the report. It is right that there should be wide consultation on that point, so that we can be precisely clear about where providing the report would not be appropriate. It is impossible to give a 100 per cent. guarantee that that will happen in every case, because that is not how the Bill is drafted. Proposed subsection (2B) has been drafted using the word may. It states that a scheme may provide to delay the provision of a report or to provide that a report need not be provided in rare cases. It simply gives flexibility.

Charles Walker: If the report is not provided to a patient, where would that leave the patient? What form of redress would the patient have in those cases? How could the patient ascertain where the failings occurred in his or her the treatment if he or she does not have a copy of the report?

Andy Burnham: We were asked to go further in Committee. We have in the Bill a requirement to provide an explanation and an apology if one is deemed appropriate. I argued in Committee that that would ordinarily meet the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Romsey, because people would receive an explanation that, for all intents and purposes, would comprise the same information as the report. She pressed me to go further. She said that a report will be compiled, so it is right that the patient should have access to that report. If it is accepted that a case should proceed under the NHS redress scheme, those provisions are laid down in the Bill, so the patient is left in a strong position, and the patient will be in an even stronger position as a result of the amendments.

Graham Stuart: The core criticism of the Bill is that the NHS will be judge, jury and defendant if negligence occurs. The Minister is now telling us that, in addition to being judge, jury and defendant, the NHS can withhold the report on the investigation of the facts in some cases from the person who has been wronged. How can that be right? How will that be heard outside the House?

Andy Burnham: Opposition Members have chucked around the phrase judge and jury in considering the Bill, but the hon. Gentleman is clearly wrong, because a judge decides whether or not an individual's rights are invoked, leaving the individual with an adjudication. The scheme does not do that; it is out of the legal process. It does not dispense with people's legal rights to pursue their cases through the courts; it does not do that at all.
	If there is a case under the scheme and redress is offered, it provides for all the things that I have said are in the Bill. I do not believe that I could be clearer in my remarks. Indeed, the Bill makes it absolutely plain that the expectation is that, on request, people will be given their investigation reports. I believe that I have answered in full the points that have been put to me. I believe that we should try to draw these remarks to a close.

Iris Robinson: Will the Minister clarify what would happen in a case in which the files were lost and the coroner's report was also missing? That happened in a case in Northern Ireland, in which a family has been trying for 30 years to get answers about the death of a young child who had been in hospital following a heart attack. He was given fluids when he was not supposed to be given any foods. Where should people go for redress in such cases?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Lady has described an extremely unfortunate case. However, that would be an unlikely scenario in today's NHS, given that much of the documentation is now computerised. I do not want to open up a debate on NHS information technology, but much of the information would be held on an IT record today, and there would not be the same risk of data relevant to a case going missing. Even if some paperwork were lost, it could probably be replicated from the source material. However, the hon. Lady has made a reasonable point, and obviously we would not want to see such things happen.
	I have dealt with the points raised by Opposition Members. They seem to want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but I urge them not to do so. Indeed, they should be pleased with the concessions that we have made. Earl Howe pressed us to go further and to provide a report giving an explanation of how similar circumstances would not arise again, and I believe that the amendments have responded to concerns that were expressed in another place. There was consensus on all sides on these issues, and I believe that there still is. However, if Opposition Members want to pursue the issue of consultation, I recommend that they do so. I commend the amendment to the House.
	 Amendment agreed to.
	 Amendment made: No. 9, in page 3, line 8, at end insert
	'and
	(d) the giving of a report on the action which has been, or will be, taken to prevent similar cases arising,'. [ Andy Burnham .]

Clause 6
	  
	Suspension of limitation period

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 4, line 13, leave out '(3) and' and insert '(2A) to'. [ Andy Burnham . ]

John Baron: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 16, after first 'the', insert 'independent'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 4, line 16, at end insert
	'in accordance with the rules of natural justice such that the person overseeing the investigation is independent of the trust under investigation (such investigation to be confined to the facts of cases and not to consider issues of liability in law, whether civil or criminal).'.
	No. 3, in page 4, line 19, at end insert
	'( ) about the assessment of liability in tort under the scheme.'.
	No. 6, in clause 11, page 6, line 28, at end insert
	'save for the investigation of the facts of cases in accordance with subsection 6(2)(a)'.

John Baron: This group of cross-party amendments reflects our concern that the NHS redress scheme, as envisaged in the Bill, lacks independence. This represents a missed opportunity to create a mechanism that will have the full confidence of patients and therefore provide a meaningful alternative to going to court. This is the key dividing line between the Government and the Opposition. I speak also for the Liberal Democrats and for the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) when I say that we believe that the fact-finding stage of the investigation must be independent. The Government do not agree. The Minister explicitly conceded that in stark terms in Committee, when he said that the scheme is not independent. In other words, the investigation will be conducted internally by the NHS. The very trust being investigated will be investigating itself.
	We believe that to be fundamentally wrong for a number of reasons. The first relates to the principle of natural justice. The NHS should not be its own judge and jury, as that represents a clear conflict of interest. Independence is a basic principle of natural justice enshrined in the rule against bias that no man or woman should be a judge in his or her own cause. We have consulted widely on this issue, and there is widespread concern outside this place about the lack of independence in the Bill.
	There is also an issue of credibility. Independence is a pragmatic necessity, in the sense that an investigation without the badge of independence would lack credibility and fail to inspire the confidence of patients. That point was acknowledged by the Constitutional Affairs Committee in its report Compensation Culture: NHS Redress Bill, published on 1 March 2006.

Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify a point for me? In his amendment No. 2, he proposes that the person overseeing the investigation should be
	independent of the trust under investigation.
	He also referred to the NHS investigating itself. Does he envisage that person being an NHS employee, or does he envisage that person being employed outside the NHS? If the former, how does he square that with his opposition to the NHS investigating itself?

John Baron: The Minister makes a reasonable point. We believe that it is absolutely wrong that the trust being investigated should conduct that investigation. As is normal practice in coroners' courts and the like, we suggest that the person who would oversee that investigation, who would be totally independent of the trust, could sign a disclosure of conflict of interest to ensure that there was no connection with the trust in question. Let us be clear: this is enabling legislation. We are trying to establish the principle of independence, which the Government will not even acknowledge. In our view, the best way of establishing that independence is to ensure that the person overseeing the investigation by the trust is independent of that trust.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman has therefore confirmed that the NHS would be investigating itself, as the person would be an employee of the NHS  [Interruption] The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, not necessarily. Let me ask him again: is that person an employee of the NHS, or is the person employed outside the NHS? Would each NHS trust have an independent investigator? An elaborate scheme was put forward in Committee for patient redress investigators, and this proposal appears to be different. For the sake of a good debate, he needs to clarify this point.

John Baron: It is very straightforward, and I am sorry that the Minister is having trouble with it. We are suggesting that whoever oversees the investigation should be independent of the trust in question. I hope that that is a simple concept to understand. That is the best way of importing independence into the scheme. We are trying to avoid the situation where the trust being investigated conducts the investigation itself. As this is enabling legislation, we are trying to import into the Bill the concept and principle of independence, something to which I think that the Ministercertainly, he suggested this in Committeeis totally opposed.
	I return to the point acknowledged by the Constitutional Affairs Committee in its report, Compensation Culture: NHS Redress Bill, published on 1 March 2006. It stated:
	We are concerned that if the organisation which is responsible for defending trusts and hospitals is also charged with running the scheme, there may be a perception (whatever the reality) of a conflict of interest.
	That is terribly important. A change of culture within the NHS is desperately needed. At the moment, too many patients are frustrated by their inability to get to the truth, because they see themselves as fighting a bureaucracy that is not willing to co-operate. However, one cannot change the culture of a massive organisation such as the NHS by flicking a switch in Whitehall or through exhortation, as long as the trusts and individuals involved have an organisational and professional interest in the casea conflict of interest. Patients want an independent fact-finding investigation, in which they have faith because of its independence. There can be no substitute for that. In patients' eyes, independence will guarantee an honest assessment of the facts.
	To illustrate the point, I briefly beg the House's indulgenceI am sure that all Members will have examples of constituents who have struggledto recount a very sad case from my constituency. A daughter of the family in question suffered brain damage as an infant but survived into young adulthood. Sadly, she died unexpectedly, shortly after abdominal surgery. Even to a laymanit is a matter of common sensethere was a striking temporal relation between the occurrence of the operation and the occurrence of her death. It required some explanation. However, the cause of death certificate made no mention of the recent surgery. There has been a post-mortem examination, but the pathologist made no mention of the recent surgery in determining the cause of death. The death had apparently not even been reported to the coroner immediately following its occurrence.
	Months later, the death was reported to the coroner, who declined to hold an inquest. Eventually, two years after the death and following much campaigning by the familyand several letters of robust representation from methe coroner was persuaded that the death was a matter into which she ought properly to inquire.
	I do not know and cannot comment on why the cause of death certificate and the pathologist's determination of cause of death did not refer to the recent operation. I can say, however, that the doctors who dealt with those matters were connected with the hospital where the events took place.
	The familyMr. and Mrs. Sharp, who have obviously given me permission to raise the case herewant a factual explanation. That is all that they have ever wanted. Only then can they decide whether further action is required. They want an honest investigation of the facts, and have made it clear to me that that can only be brought about, in their minds, if the investigation is independent. Unfortunately, however, that request and many like it are being ignored by the Government.
	The Government have made clear, especially in Committee, that what is more important to them is for the NHS to take ownership of the scheme. That was reinforced by the Minister in Committee. The Government want the redress scheme to be an internal system that the NHS will feel that it owns and controls. But that is precisely why people might not have confidence in the system. They have already been battling with an internal system for years, and they are very frustrated by it. They want change, and they want independence. Without independence, any redress scheme risks lacking credibility.
	The amendments are also about separating fact finding and fault finding for the purpose of the scheme. We have specified that independence must relate to the fact finding stage of the scheme, because establishing the facts must precede any assessment of liability. Both the Minister and the Secretary of State have conceded that there is a practical and logical distinction between fact finding and fault finding for the purposes of the scheme, and have also conceded that the Government's proposed scheme is itself a two-stage process.
	On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said
	The trust would investigate and ascertain the facts and, with the patient's consent, would refer the case to the scheme authority, the NHS Litigation Authority, to establish liability and an appropriate level of compensation.[ Official Report, 6 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 30.]
	The Minister explicitly confirmed that in Committee, and that is exactly what we envisage. The principle underlying the distinction is set out in the Inquiries Act 2005 in relation to the coroner's inquest, and its logic is readily acknowledged in our courts.
	If an additional endorsement of that logic were required, we would need look no further than the Inquiries Act itself. The Act provides that an inquiry has no power to determine a person's civil or criminal liability. The explanatory notes state
	There is often a strong feeling...that an inquiry should determine who is to blame for what has occurred. However, inquiries are not courts and their findings cannot and do not have legal effect. The aim of inquiries is to help to restore public confidence in systems or services by investigating the facts and making recommendations to prevent recurrence, not to establish liability or to punish anyone.
	The Inquiries Act provides that an inquiry is not to be inhibited in the discharge of its functions by any likelihood of liability being inferred from findings of fact or recommendations that it makes. The explanatory notes state that
	it is not intended that the inquiry should be hampered in its investigations by a fear that responsibility may be inferred from a determination of a fact.
	It is important for the investigation of facts not to be contaminated by considerations of fault, either by the NHS Litigation Authority with a mind to defend the NHS or by lawyers asserting rights on behalf of the patient.
	Given that we and the Government agree that a two-stage process exists, the only issue is whether the investigation of the facts ought to be independent. We propose that the person who oversees the investigation of the facts must be independent of the trust concerned, as we have discussed. We believe that there is no other way of ensuring real independence. Rather than referring to independent fact finding, however, the Minister has referred to various mechanisms to safeguard patients' interests.
	We suggest that those are leaky buckets that do not hold water. The Secretary of State, on Second Reading, and the Minister, in Committee, referred to a variety of those. In our view, they cannot offer the reassurance to patients that genuine independence would provide. For example, the Minister suggested that free, independent legal advice on an offer or settlement would import elements of independence and safeguard patients' interests. But that is not the same thing as an independent scheme. Participation by independent lawyers in a process does not transform a non-independent process into an independent one. Moreover, lawyers are not independent, but have to act on someone's instructions.
	The Minister has also made great play of free, independent medical expert advice. I suggest that that is an empty assurance, because expert advice should be independent anyway, or it is not worth the paper it is written on. If it is not independent, it is not expert opinion at all, but advocacy. The person overseeing the investigation at the trust level would have the right to obtain independent medical expert advice in order to help to ascertain the facts, so the Government's assurance that free, independent medical expert advice would help does not add anything.

Si�n Simon: What is the Conservatives' view on the joint instruction of medical experts, which many patient safety organisations and I think is very important? If it were integrated into the scheme, it would be a valuable way to improve it. However, the Tory party seems determined to oppose that, for reasons that I genuinely do not understand.

John Baron: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to raise that point in the House. To be kind to him, I suggest that his recommendation is only a half-measure, because the independent person who oversees the investigation of the facts would have the right to call forward expert medical opinion. The suggestion of joint instruction would add nothing that would not be available to the independent person overseeing the investigation. If the hon. Gentleman is serious about independence, he should back the concept of ensuring that whoever oversees the investigation is independent of the trust that is being investigated. Like a coroner, that person would have the right to call forward expert medical advice that was truly independent for the benefit of the patient in question. The only way to guarantee independence is by having somebody independent oversee the investigation.
	The Minister talked about access to court action. The Government claim that a safeguard is that the patient can reject the scheme and have access to the courts, but that is nonsense. The Government are defining the merit of redress scheme by the occasion of its failurewhen people resort to court action even though the scheme is supposed to provide a genuine alternative to litigation. The Secretary of State and the Minister have made great play of the fact that the patient can always complain to the health service ombudsman and ask for a review to be undertaken by the Healthcare Commission. However, the availability of such remedies relates to maladministration and procedural matters, not substantive issues.
	Overall, the leaky buckets do not change the fact that the trust under investigation would be investigating itselfa clear conflict of interests that acts against patients' best interests. Nor would the independence that we envisage be more expensive. The Minister has made great play of that point.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman really must tell us who would employ the individuals mentioned in the amendment. Would they be employed by another scheme member or outside the national health service

Graham Stuart: You are the Government.

Andy Burnham: But it is an Opposition amendment. If those individuals were to be employed outside the NHS, by whom would they be employed and how many would there be?

John Baron: The Minister persists with that question because he is trying to mask the fact that the Government do not accept that the scheme should be independent. We are trying to import into the Bill the concept and principle of independence, and the best way to do that is to ensure that whoever oversees the investigation of a trust is independent of that trust. It is as simple as that.

Graham Stuart: The Minister seems to have forgotten that this is enabling legislation. The thousands of civil servants behind the Government should mean that it is possible to decide, after an appropriate time, precisely who should control investigations. Does my hon. Friend agree that what is important now is to determine that that person should be independent, and that the Minister is simply trying to pick our proposal apart?

John Baron: I totally agree. We are trying to introduce the principle and concept of independence, but the Minister has made it clear that he does not believe that the scheme should be independent.

Richard Taylor: May I make a suggestion that may go at least half way towards answering the Minister? In Making Amends, it was proposed that the NHS redress scheme should be aligned closely with the new NHS complaints procedure. If that were to happen, the Healthcare Commission would be involved, and that would mean that people would automatically be available to oversee the process independently.

John Baron: I do not disagree, but we need to make it clear that we are trying to introduce into the Bill the principle and concept of independence. I am willing to give way to the Minister again if he wishes to clarify his position on the matter. However, in response to an intervention by me in Committee, he made it abundantly clear that he did not believe that the scheme should be independent, and that ownership was more important.

Andy Burnham: I am happy to intervene again. At the start of his contribution, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that he does not believe that the NHS should investigate itself. In Committee, his proposal was for independent and suitably qualified patient redress investigators, but now he is proposing something different. He needs to give the House an explanation of that, and not evade the question that I am about to ask. Will the people holding those posts be employed by neighbouring trusts, or by PCTs, or by a body such as the Healthcare Commission? If I am to answer him, he needs to be specific. It is not good enough for him to say that the Opposition do not have armies of civil servants: he is asking us to change our legislative proposals, so we need to know what he intends.

John Baron: The Minister referred to amendments that were proposed in Committee, but I suggest that he confine himself to those tabled for today's Report stage in the House. He seems unable to accept that we are trying to push for the principle and concept of independence. He has not refuted my earlier suggestion that he does not believe that the redress scheme should be independent, so there can be no merit in going into detail about how we would secure that independence. We are using the amendments to introduce the principle and concept of independence into the Bill.
	The Minister has tried to attack our proposal that the redress process should be independent by suggesting that it would be more expensive. The Government have conceded, however, that in both their and our proposals there is a two-stage process; the fact-finding cost is, therefore, fixed, inevitable and unavoidable whoever oversees the investigation. There is no question of duplicating bureaucracies and so no question of additional cost. Indeed, our proposals could actually save money as they would inspire greater confidence in the scheme and thus better avoid costly litigation.
	In addition, the Minister has contrived the idea that an independent fact finding process would be adversarial, accusatory or finger pointing, but that makes no sense at all. There is a basic legal distinction between an adversarial process and an inquisitorial one. An inquisitorial process is concerned with fact finding, not fault finding; there is no sense in which such an investigation would reinforce a blame culture in the NHS. Indeed, our proposal for an independent fact finding process would ensure that the proceedings were not adversarial, as no lawyers would be present and no legal rights would be asserted or defended.
	The Minister talked about promoting a culture of openness and honesty, in which the NHS takes responsibility for its own mistakes. He implied time and time again that because our proposal would require an independent outsider to go in and consider what went wronghe referred to that point again earlier todayit argued against a culture of openness in the NHS and would encourage NHS staff to close ranks and clam up. But that is absurd. If the openness the Minister is talking about is all in-house and not exposed to outside scrutiny, it is not openness at all. There is a fundamental contradiction between the Government's desire to promote openness and the Minister's reluctance to allow an independent person to oversee the investigation of the facts.
	In Committee, the Minister tried to ridicule our suggestion for an independent fact-finding process by talking about people snooping on trusts. He criticised the Opposition for not trusting NHS professionals to carry out an investigation into their own case, but that is a matter neither of snooping nor of trust. What exactly does the Minister believe that the NHS has to fear if his intention is to promote openness and honesty?
	I fear that the Minister has taken the problem at the heart of medical errorthe blame culture and the reluctance to admit mistakesand institutionalised it. Instead of challenging and confronting the problem, he has built his system around it. His non-independent scheme seeks to insulate the NHS from outside investigation even when such investigation is of a fact-finding rather than a fault-finding nature. He has set his heart on a non-independent scheme and will dredge up as many bad arguments as he can to support it. Saying that lessons should be learned, but only if they are the lessons the trust wants to learn, is not a genuine commitment to learning lessons or to changing the culture of the NHS.
	In conclusion, I return to my theme: independence is right both in practice and in principle. It complements the culture of openness the Minister is trying to promote. It would not be accusatory because we would separate fact-finding from fault-finding; we would keep the lawyers and the finger pointing out. It would allow lessons to be learned and would reassure the patient. That is the most important point, because without independence, the investigation of facts, which will eventually give rise to an assessmentnot a determinationof liability and a possible offer of compensation, will not have the confidence of patients. In the worst case scenario the redress scheme would not be a meaningful alternative to going to court, and because of the importance of the issue I intend to test the opinion of the House on the amendment.

Sandra Gidley: We have just heard a long and detailed explanationdespite what the Minister thinksso I shall not rehearse many of the arguments.
	The amendments are an attempt to improve the scheme by introducing the concept of independence. There is broad consensus that we want a spirit of openness and honesty in the NHS; it needs to be part of the NHS culture. I know that attempts are being made to engender and promote that, with the emphasis on the reporting of incidents, which has quite a depressing effect because we then read reports that there are a million adverse incidents in the NHS in a year. Actually, it is good that any near missany slight problemis reported, because we learn from those mistakes. We are moving towards a culture of openness and honesty, because people realise that in many instances there is no blame attached.
	Disagreement has arisen, however, because the Government seem to be wedded to the idea that in-house investigation will promote further openness and honesty. Indeed, Members such as the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), who have considerable experience of the NHS, argue that point very powerfully.
	I undertook my own very unscientific straw poll.

Simon Burns: Like all Lib Dem polls.

Sandra Gidley: I am on the hon. Gentleman's side hereremember?
	I conducted that poll to get a feeling for the attitude of various grass-roots employees of the NHS. I asked for their thoughts in a very neutral way, without prompting. There seemed to be a considerable consensus that a completely in-house investigation causes problems, not necessarily because of a lack of desire for openness, but because often internal tensions and loyalties come into play and are played on in a way that can be unacceptable. For that reason, there seem to be a number of people who strongly support the concept of independence.
	I was accused of being unscientific, but, as the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) said earlier, a number of bodies support this concept. I think we have to approach it from a patient perspective, because unfortunately patients can sometimes have a deep mistrust of the NHS. When things are going well, people have nothing but praise, but when things go wrong, time and again there is the accusation that they all cover up for each other. That perception must be challenged, and that is why the Bill as it stands is so dangerous. I am far from convinced that they all cover up for each other, but it does happen from time to time.
	For those reasons, there is a huge advantage in introducing someone from outside the organisation: people can talk more frankly, as long as the outside person has some powers to access the information that is required to complete the investigation. If that person is independent, the process will have much greater buyin from the public and, I suspect, much greater cooperation from staff who are involved, directly or indirectly.
	The outside person clearly needs to be independent. The Minister questioned us at some length to try to get details of who would employ the person and whether they would be truly independent of the NHS. I confess that I felt that the Minister was taking the view that we, as Opposition Members, often take in Standing Committees, because we are often faced with something fairly broadbrush from the Government and are asked to take a lot of things on trust.  [Interruption.] The Minister says that he explains, and I concede that he has tried very hard to explain, but I can think of numerous Standing Committees in which I have served where the detail of proposals was extremely hazyso the Minister is not exactly unique in this.

Steve Webb: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government accept the spirit of the amendments and the principle of independence, no Opposition Member would, I suppose, force through the specific wording, provided we received an assurance that amendments on independence would be introduced in another place?

Sandra Gidley: That would be welcome, but, judging from the experience during other stages of the Bill, I cannot see the Government conceding on this matter.
	There must be wider consultation on the precise nature of the independence so that we know exactly what is acceptable to patients and those within the NHS. Taking the Government approach of the enabling principle, I would contend that there is everything to be gained from accepting the principle of what we are talking about and consulting more widely on the detail. I urge the Minister to consider the amendments, which have widespread support, carefully, and perhaps live a little dangerously.

Michael Penning: I will speak for only a short timeI am sure that the Minister will be pleased to hear that. I want to talk about natural justice, about which we seldom hear from the Government these days. If patients or their loved ones feel that they have suffered at the hands of the NHS, they have already been substantially hurt and often feel enormously let down. If they are told, Well, it can't be an independent inquiry. The trust will do the inquiry themselves they will not understand where the natural justice is in the Bill. I am disappointed by what I have heard. I was not on the Committee, but I am on the Health Committee and we have looked at the matter independentlynot in a report, but in relation to the information that has come through. I honestly thought that the Government were going to open things up and allow natural justice in the NHS.
	As a new MP, all too often I have constituents who come to me and say, Would you take my case to the ombudsman? Naturally we have to go through the bureaucratic process of going to the trust and making a formal complaint. My constituents say, Why? It's the trust that's let us down. It's the trust that made the mistakes. How on earth are we going to have confidence in the NHS if we tell them, Don't worry. We've got a brand new Bill. Everything is going to be fine. And, by the way, the trust is going to make the inquiry into your complaint. That is not going to work.
	The Minister should think about this matter carefully. If it were his children or family and he had cause to seek redress, would he be happy to go to the same management and the same people who had been treating his loved ones and perhaps made mistakes? That is where the danger in not accepting the provisions lies. We need confidence in the NHS. The NHS is going through a difficult time.

Si�n Simon: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying and I appreciate the sincerity of his intent, but, in common with hon. Members across the Opposition Benches, he is missing the fundamental point that the Bill is about the process during which the NHS investigates itself. It is not about these other things. In his example, the alternative is for every case to go straight to the ombudsman. That should not happen, because the NHS is bound to investigate itself and the Bill is about how it does that.

Michael Penning: In all sincerity, I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. However, the object of any such Bill is the trust of the publicour constituentswho are using the service. I was not saying, in any shape or form, that we should go from the patient having problems and needing redress straight to the ombudsman. However, as the Bill stands, we still have the trust investigating itself. We have moved away from that in other areas of government. The police used to investigate themselves. They do not do that any more because the public did not trust the methodology. We have moved away from that. I am not saying we should move straight to the ombudsman; I am saying that trust and natural justice should be addressed, which I am sure was the intention of the Bill at the start. That is not going to happen unless there is independence.

William McCrea: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that openness and independence are essential to gain confidence in the community and to provide a major protection for the excellent members of the NHS?

Michael Penning: I could not agree more. The hon. Gentleman is spot on.
	If we had independence it would very much help the professionals who do such a fantastic job in the NHSthose in the management structure and the doctors and nurses who are so worried. The natural assumption is that when another complaint comes in, the walls will go up. Whether or not that is true, it is the perception in the NHS and among patients. I cannot stress how strongly I feel about this matter. We have started to see openness in the NHS: patients can see their records now, which they never used to be able to do. I am sure that the Minister acts in good faith, but I say to him that this part of the Bill is fundamentally wrong. It should be about natural justice, and we will not gain that if the measure lacks independence.

Graham Stuart: We have heard a very powerful speech that goes to the heart of the issue, which is the patient experience. It is not possible for the House to focus too much on the position of someone who has been wronged by the system and has a great sense of grievance. In the system today, as the Government have described, such people all too often feel that their complaint is not taken seriously, they feel that an explanation has not been provided and they do not receive an apology.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), I recognise that the Government and the Minister are sincere in their desire to create a decent redress scheme. Unfortunately, the more I have seen of the Bill and its proceedings, the clearer it has become that it is fundamentally flawed. Fault and fact finding will not be separated. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) is right to challenge the notion that the NHS investigates itself. It has been used by Opposition Members to sum up the issue, and it is technically correct. I put it to the hon. GentlemanI know that he takes a great interest in this matter and is sincere in his viewsthat the problem is not that the NHS investigates itself but that the trust that is responsible for letting down the individual patient ends up investigating the case.
	There are trusts that are poorly runfortunately not manytrusts in which mistakes happen and trusts that have a culture that is less than adequate. Where the local community feels that that is the case, where individuals have been negligently treated by the trust, the justice that they will receive under the Government's golden new system is that that trust will investigate itself. That is at the core of our objections to the Bill.

Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend is making an important point. Is it not important that we look at this matter through the eyes of families of constituents such as mine, who are trying to find any way they can to avoid having to go to court and employ expensive lawyers? They support the principles behind the Bill, but what they really want is a patients' champion, or a families' champion, separate from the trust. That is the key point.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I ask the Minister not to nit-pick at the concept of independence. It is not a failure on the part of the Opposition to fail to specify precisely which authority will oversee this. Doubtless there are various organisations that could do so, and a contribution from the Government to the discussion on how that could better be done would be useful. Rather than challenging the Conservatives to tell them how to run the Government, as this Government, in an intellectually bankrupt way, too often do, the Minister should tell us why he feels that no such body exists or could be created.

Si�n Simon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Graham Stuart: I will make a little more progress.
	I would rather hear from the Minister why it is impossible to imagine setting up a body to oversee these matters and ensure that there is independence. We are in an invidious position: the Government, who started out with the best intentions, are suggesting that the trust should be the investigator, the defendant and, to an extent, the jury.
	The Minister made it clear that there is a truly alarming additional element. Although he saysand I welcome itthat in nearly all cases the report into an incident will be made available to the patient concerned, unfortunately there are no guarantees on how often that would happen. The trust at fault could investigate itself, then refuse to present the report to the patient who has been wronged. When the Minister goes to sleep tonight, he must accept, in all good conscience, that he is a long way from the position that he wanted to secure when he first sought to provide a fairer system of justice for patients who have been wronged.

Michael Penning: Can my hon. Friend think of any reason why the Minister is not willing to include in the Bill a provision stating that the reports should be available to the patients concerned?

Graham Stuart: I cannot think of any reason. The Minister implied that he would like patients always to be provided with a copy of the report. He suggested that when it was not the patient but someone else who asked for the report, it should not necessarily be provided, but such a provision could be included in the Bill. I think that hon. Members in both Opposition parties would urge the Minister to make that change, even at this late stage.
	I am rightly being urged to keep my speech short, but, before I conclude, I ask the Minister to think about the clinicians' point of view. Imagine that, in a trust such as the one that I have described, there was a clinician who was not too popular with the trust's management, and a complaint was received. Who investigates it? Does an independent fact finder who is experienced in such investigations, and to whom we can look for an objective assessment of the facts, come in from outside? No, the trust's management, with whom the clinician may have a fractious relationship, decides on the facts of the case, writes up the report and may conceivably release it to the patient. Quite possibly, that patient's first act will be to stop at the local newspaper office on his way to the lawyers.

Andy Burnham: rose

Graham Stuart: I will give way to the Minister in a moment.
	The clinician may find himself in that position. The Minister's suggestionthis is the point to which I would like him to respondthat the clinician will be happy with that, and that it will lead to openness, is absurd.

Andy Burnham: I will not respond to that, but I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question. Does he accept that it is standard practice, not just in the public sector but in the private sector, that when a complaint is brought against an organisation, the first stage should be an investigation carried out by the organisation itself? Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that does not happen in the private sector? If someone sought to escalate a case before such an investigation had happened, they would normally be told to take the matter back to the organisation for investigation and response.

Graham Stuart: The Minister makes a point with some power to it, but the Government introduced the Bill precisely because the NHS is not investigating itself in that way. It is because the matter is critical, not only to the patient but to the country as a whole, that independence is needed. The police have similar status, and it is similarly important that they should conduct themselves fairly, but it has been decided that they should not investigate themselves.
	The Minister said at the beginning of his contribution that there will not be an independent investigation. That is the message that the Government are sending out. The Minister is telling patients who have been wronged by trusts across the country that there will be no independent investigation. The Government will realise, months or years from now, that it is a mistake to send out that signal and to destroy the good intentions that they had when they set out on this path.

Charles Walker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. In Committee I thought that, by and large, this was a good Bill. There were some flaws in it, but on the whole it was facing in the right direction. However, I am becoming concerned.
	The Bill raises the question of who is in charge of a hospital trust when a mistake is made. The answer, of course, is the chief executive. The buck stops with him. If a pattern of mistakes emerges, there is a danger that vested interests will begin to take hold. Would a chief executive therefore begin to take a much closer interest in the investigation process, perhaps to make sure that the full implications of the mistakes made do not see the light of day, or that if they do, they are kept well away from his office?
	There is a need for trust and transparency in the system. The public sectorthe NHS and the police, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) saidis at the best of times viewed with a degree of cynicism by the public. There is a concern among many of my constituents, and no doubt among the public in general, that if faced with an investigation that could be embarrassing, the NHS will close ranks around the senior management team and perhaps the clinicians concerned.
	The danger arises if a pattern starts to emerge. We discussed reports being made public or not. Surely if a pattern is emerging, reports may be withheld because they will prove that failures in the system have not been addressedthat something that was identified a year ago has happened time and again. For the sake of my constituents and others, a degree of independence would be wholly justified. Perhaps a complaint against a trust should be investigated by another trust. We see that happening in the police, where one force may investigate a complaint against another.
	I know that the Minister is a hugely decent and honourable gentleman and I would not wish to waste his time by making puerile suggestions. I join my hon. Friends in urging him to find some way of injecting an element of independence into the investigation procedure, perhaps by allowing a trust other than the one being investigated to look into the complaint or the case being presented.

Nick Hurd: I shall add one brief point. The Minister and the Government are deluding themselves in their claim that the Bill will transform the culture of the NHS. I say that for two reasons. First, we on the Conservative Benches are learning a little about culture change, and we know that it requires strong management and strong signals of change. The more I look at the Bill, the more it strikes me that it does little more than formalise what already happens. I cannot see that that is a strong signal of change to the NHS.
	Secondly, because necessarily at no point in the process is the legal threat removedit remains as a sword potentially hanging over the situation at all timesI cannot see how that will make the NHS any more welcoming of a breathing space to face up to its failings or become more active in identifying problems. That is a delusion it would be much better to focus, as we do, on how the patients will respond to the opportunity. They will have two questions first, who will find out the facts? The Government say that will be done by the very trust that made the mistake. Secondly, who will define liability? The answer is the very agency whose priority is to defend the NHS. It is very difficult to see how patients will have any more confidence in the new system. It would be far better to focus on a guarantee of independence, as we propose, to find the facts.

Richard Taylor: I am passionately on the side of those who want complete independence in the process. The Government have a short memory. The old NHS complaints procedure was not independent, in that the complaints convenor was time and again an employee of the trust or very often a non-executive director of the trust. That happened in my area. Only a minuscule number of complaints got through that trust employee. The Government then changed the NHS complaints procedure. Certainly, the first stage is the internal investigation, but then it moves on to the wider, completely independent part supervised by the Healthcare Commission.
	I will give an example from personal memory. Rather a long time ago, I was a doctor doing my national service in the RAF. I had just got married. Within weeks of that, I was posted unaccompanied to Christmas Island. My commanding officer, who was the same sort of lovely, helpful, avuncular figure as Mr. Speaker himself, told me that an officer had the right to appeal to the Secretary of State for Air. So I came up to London in my best uniform to appeal to him, but who did I see? It was merely the lowly squadron leader who had given me the posting.

Charles Walker: I hate to pick at open wounds, but it is a little like the Prime Minister saying, Yes, I recognise there is a problem with cash for peerages and the Labour party is going to investigate it. What confidence would the public have in that sort of statement?

Richard Taylor: I will not comment on that point.
	The Minister has said that the redress scheme will be owned by the NHS. I entirely agree that the investigation has to be carried out, but there must be independent oversight for it to gain any confidence among the ordinary people. I understand that he said in Committee that he favoured a scheme that encouraged the NHS to own up to mistakes. I agree, but was not he being a little naive? Surely, there has to be independent outside oversight to ensure that an investigation is full and open and allows no cover-up.

Andy Burnham: We have had a long discussion on this group of amendments, during which the Opposition's confusion has been laid completely bare.
	Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 seek completely to separate fact-finding investigations under the redress scheme from fault finding. The scheme authority would have no role in the investigation and would be unable to provide guidance or advice to scheme members about investigations. The opportunity for a unified and complete scheme for redress would be lost. I reject the amendments and encourage my hon. Friends to do likewise.
	The amendments focus on a major area of disagreementnamely, independent investigation. In another place, the Opposition gave us the model of
	suitably qualified patient redress investigators
	who were to conduct the fact-finding investigation in each case and to be overseen by the Healthcare Commission, which was also to be responsible for maintaining and publishing a list of the investigators. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) defended that proposal. In Committee, we saw it slowly unravel as the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) sought to explain it to us. When we asked him to describe exactly how it would work and, importantly, how much it would cost, he said:
	at the top we have one person, an NHS redress investigator, who is truly independent and oversees the fact-finding stage.[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 13 June 2006; c. 43.]
	That is not what the amendment in the other place provided for. It clearly stated that the patient redress investigators were to conduct the investigation of the facts of a case and produce a report on the principal findings.
	In Committee, the redress investigator was no longer to conduct the case but to play an oversight role. The proposal somehow changed between Second Reading and Committee. We now have a new proposal whereby an individual would be independent of the trust. However, the hon. Member for Billericay has provided no clarity about who would employ that individualanother NHS trust, the Healthcare Commission or a different organisation. We have no idea of the proposed number of independent investigators, yet we are asked to accept an amendment that includes no detail, with complete policy confusion behind it.
	The hon. Gentleman challenged me on several occasions by saying that I was opposed to independence and had a fundamental objection to it. I hope that I partly convinced him that the Bill and the amendments that we have tabled today will mean more openness and transparency. There is independence in the scheme in that we can use independent medical experts. Independent legal advice will also be provided to individuals at the end of the scheme.
	However, if the hon. Gentleman is asking me to explain again the purpose of the scheme, I stress that we are considering the national health service doing better what it should do ordinarilyinvestigate complaints brought by patients and not cause huge delay and frustration when patients try to have a complaint investigated. We are considering the NHS conducting the first stage of complaints better.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) was right to say that the Opposition have consistently misunderstood the point. Why would we replicate the legal process in the scheme? It is an out-of-court settlement scheme. Why on earth would we build into it all the expense of the independent legal process?

Steve Webb: When the police investigate themselves, people are not happy and the Government have therefore created an Independent Police Complaints Commission. Why is that okay for the police but not the NHS?

Andy Burnham: Again, Opposition Members are confused. There is a second stage complaints process in the NHS. The Healthcare Commission deals with that. However, if the hon. Gentleman wrote to the commission today with a complaint from a constituent, I am confident that it would write back and ask him whether he had first complained to the relevant trust and what its explanation was. If he took a complaint about a police force to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, its response would be the same. It would not deal with an initial complaint by an individual constituent.

Si�n Simon: Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members again fundamentally misunderstand our constituents' position? It is not the case that they do not want to complain to the relevant trust, that they do not want the trust to investigate itself or that they want immediate redress through an independent arbiter. My constituents want to complain to the trust that has done what they perceive to be wrong. They want the people responsible to take them seriously, consider the complaint in depth, find the solutions and provide some answers. The Bill simply creates a process and provides a huge array of tools to enable trusts to do that. That is the purpose of the measure, which Opposition Members have fundamentally failed to understand throughout our proceedings.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is right and there is probably no point in my saying more, but I shall say a little. He has expressed exactly what our constituents want when they come to our advice surgeries. They want their local trusts to see for themselves the mistake that has been made, acknowledge it, apologise, explain and take steps that will stop that happening to other local peopletheir neighbours who live in the same community. That is what they want.
	When I was sitting through some of the tripe that we heard from Opposition Members, I got the impression that they have a distinct distrust of the national health service's ability to carry out fair investigations into complaints brought to it.  [Interruption.] It is nothing to do with the Government; these are complaints that are brought to NHS trusts. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) said that he could not take those complaints to trusts because they would not have the trust of the public; he used words exactly to that effect.

Michael Penning: Will the Minister give way?

Andy Burnham: No, I will not, because I listened to the hon. Gentleman at length.  [Interruption.] Well, that was the distinct impression that I got when listening to the points that he made.

John Baron: Let us be absolutely clear. There is already an independent structure for the making of complaints; what we are talking about here is qualifying liabilities in tort. The Minister risks confusing the two, so let us restrict our comments to qualifying liabilities in tort. He suggested that independence can be imported in some way. He has clearly stated that he believes that the scheme is not independent and he suggests that importing lawyersso to speakwill somehow make the scheme independent. The trouble is that lawyers do not turn a non-independent scheme into an independent one, because they assert or defend legal rights. I ask the Minister to address that point. In addition, expert medical advice would be available to patients anyway, and that right would be ensuredguaranteedunder our system by the independent person overseeing the investigation. So again, this scheme does not add value.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to draw his own conclusions from my explanations. Let me say again clearly that he is right in that, for a case to qualify under the scheme, there has to be a recognition of a liability in tort, and that it then follows that there is a likelihood that compensation or other recompense might be due under the scheme. That is the qualifying gateway for cases dealt with under the scheme. However, we are proposing the breathing space of an out-of-court settlement scheme, so that it is not necessary to go through an expensive and polarised legal process in which people dig in for a long and complicated battle, often to the great frustration of individual patients who are kept waiting for a long time. In many instances, those cases are abandoned or do not come to court.
	The Bill proposes an out-of-court settlement scheme at the outset, so that redress can be provided much more quickly to individual patients. The national health service will thereby be encouraged to take a positive approach to identifying mistakes and accepting and acknowledging problems by offering an apology and an explanation to such individuals, and by making financial recompense where necessary.
	There is no doubt in my mind about the scheme. I resist amendment No. 1 because it would import the independent legal process into the scheme and turn it into something different by replicating the rights that the patient gets under the second stage legal scheme. If this scheme fails and cannot satisfactorily give redress to the individual concerned, they will still have the right to take forward an independent legal action outside the scheme; they sign nothing away by allowing their case to be proceeded with under the scheme. The scheme does something different.
	I understand why the hon. Member for Billericay presses me on the question of independence, on which we have had a useful debate.

John Baron: Will the Minister give way?

Andy Burnham: I give way again.

John Baron: I appreciate the Minister's generosity in taking interventions and I thank him for that. He and we agree that this scheme should be an alternative to going to court; that is the Government's and the Opposition's stated aim. However, does the Minister accept that the scheme's credibility therefore becomes very important? There is more likelihood of patients not going to court if they have faith in the scheme being presented to them. The best way of having faith in the scheme is ensuring that it has credibility, and the best way of ensuring that is to ensure that it is truly independent. Otherwise, many patients will come to the conclusion that it is not independent and that there is no change from the present situation. They have had the internal system many times before and now they want something different. The difference that they want is independence.

Andy Burnham: There is a built-in incentive for trusts to settle under the scheme because if they fail to do so, they face the prospect of duplicating effort and going through a further legal battle. The fact that the scheme contains a built-in incentive for trusts to settle will help to build faith in it. That is precisely why my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington tabled his new clause, putting a positive duty on seeking resolution, thereby avoiding the need to go to the courts. He was absolutely right about that, but we have provided for independent oversight of the scheme through the ability of individuals to take their case to the parliamentary ombudsman. People can ask the ombudsman to ascertain whether or not a case was adequately investigated and the process handled properlya responsibility that the ombudsman has welcomed.
	In dealing with issues raised by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), I would argue strongly that the success of the scheme will be judged by the reduction in the number of cases that go up to the second level. I would like to see a substantial reduction of cases going up to the Healthcare Commission level or on to the courts. It is precisely because the first stage of the investigation is inadequate that people feel that they have to go up to the higher level and it has to be right to encourage the NHS to do a better job at that first stage. We will thus avoid the need for cases to be passed up to the Healthcare Commission or the courts.
	We have had a long debate about the scheme that we propose and the costly, bureaucratic, complicated scheme that the Opposition are seeking to impose on us. They are asking us to accept a bunch of amendments that, quite frankly, have not been thought through and are completely chaotic. I will not go there, so I ask my hon. Friends not to accept such a proposition and to resist the amendments.

John Baron: It will not surprise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to learn that I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister's response. I do not deny his good intentions in wanting to create an alternative to going to the courts. The problem is that the scheme in the Bill does not reflect patient priorities. What patients want more than anything else is an explanation, an apology if due, and an honest assessment of the facts. Very often, compensation is a secondary consideration, but the Minister's proposals risk putting compensation in front of explanation when it comes to the operation of the scheme.
	Patients want to ensure that the lessons have been learned for the benefit of others. I am sure that the Minister would not disagree with that, but if we are to achieve it, we need an open and honest examination of the facts. There can be nothing more open and honest than having an independent person from outside the trust coming in to oversee the investigation of the trust itself. I do not understand why the Government are so worried about someone coming in from outside to investigate the facts. If we are serious about changing the culture within the NHS, ensuring that it learns from its mistakes and that investigations are open and transparent, there is no better way than ensuring that the person overseeing the investigation is independent. Otherwise, what does the NHS have to hide?
	Again, with regard to the Minister's comments about bureaucracyit was a throwaway line, but he referred to it againhe was very wide of the mark. We are not proposing to create a bureaucracy. The Government have admitted that they are suggesting a two-stage process, and we accept that it is a two-stage process: the examination of the facts and then an assessment of the liability by the NHSLA. The infrastructure for the first, fact-finding stage is already in place.
	All we are suggesting is that the person who oversees the investigation must be independent of the trust. We are not suggesting the creation of a massive bureaucracy, and I suggest that the Minister does not understand that fact and that it is a question of who oversees the investigation itself. For those reasons, I am afraid that I have not been persuaded by the Minister's arguments and I will press the amendment to a Division, to test the opinion of the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 265.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendment made: No. 11, page 4, line 23, at end insert
	'(2A) A scheme must
	(a) make provision for the findings of an investigation of a case under the scheme to be recorded in a report, and
	(b) subject to subsection (2B), make provision for a copy of the report to be provided on request to the individual seeking redress.
	(2B) A scheme may provide that no copy of an investigation report need be provided
	(a) before an offer is made under the scheme or proceedings under the scheme are terminated, or
	(b) in such other circumstances as may be specified.'.
	 [Andy Burnham.]

Clause 8
	  
	Legal advice etc.

Andy Burnham: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 41, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'subsections (2) and (4)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 1, leave out paragraph (a).
	Government amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
	Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
	Government amendment No. 15.

Andy Burnham: Clause 8(1)(b) enables the redress scheme to provide, in connection with proceedings under the scheme, for services other than legal advice.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but will hon. Members who are not staying for the debate either remain silent or leave?

Andy Burnham: In the statement of policy published in November 2005, we made it clear that, when evidence from an independent medical expert is necessary, it is intended that the scheme authority will seek to ascertain the wishes of the patient to reach agreement on an acceptable person. If patients are to have faith in the system, it is important for them to have confidence in that medical expert and in the expert's independence.
	Amendments Nos. 12 and 15 make it clear that, if the scheme provides for the services of medical experts in certain circumstances, and if an individual case falls within those circumstances, the medical expert will be jointly instructed by the scheme authority and the individual seeking redress. Therefore, when the services of medical experts are provided for under the scheme, the medical expert will be an agreed independent expert and the services of that expert will be provided without charge to the individual. For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat that the expert will be independent.
	As the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who has now joined us, said in Committee, it would not be reasonable to expect a lay person to instruct a medical expert on a complex issue. That is a fair point. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have the existing power in clause 8(1)(a) to enable legal advice to be made available to individuals when it is needed at an earlier stage under the scheme. Legal advice is not restricted to the stage at which an offer is made. We specifically have in mind that legal advice may be appropriate to enable an individual to be fully informed and involved in the joint instruction of an expert.
	Although amendment No. 15 makes specific reference to medical experts
	instructed jointly by the scheme authority and the individual seeking redress under the scheme,
	I can reassure Members that it is our firm intention that the individual seeking redress will have access to appropriate legal advice without charge. However, amendment No. 5 would remove the flexibility to provide free legal advice earlier. We want that flexibility: by rigidly excluding free legal advice, the scheme will not assist patients.
	The argument for removing clause 8(1)(a) produced in Committee was that legal advice was not necessary during the fact-finding process. Investigation ascertains what happened, and for that no legal advice is necessary. I have to say that I do not agree with that assessment. For example, there will be circumstances in which it will be appropriate for there to be instruction of medical experts to help ascertain the facts of a particular case. Government amendments Nos. 12 and 15 clarify that, where provision is made for the services of medical experts, the medical experts are to be jointly instructed by the scheme authority and the individual seeking redress. I consider it entirely reasonable, where the patient wishes it, for legal advice without charge to be made available in those circumstances. Many patients will be unaware of the issues involved in jointly instructing a medical expert and it would be unreasonable to expect a lay person to do so without advice. If the redress scheme is to be effective and to gain the confidence of patients, there needs to be appropriate support throughout the process. The aim behind the legal advice is to assist individuals seeking redress. I therefore reject amendment No. 5.
	In Committee, the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) asked for clarification of clause 8(1)(a). He said, rightly, that it is vital for a legal adviser to know who their client is: they must know to whom they are providing advice. It was suggested that clarification was required to make it clear whether the legal advice that may be provided under this clause was to be provided to the person seeking redress or to the scheme.
	The amendments make it clear that, in relation to clause 8(1)(a), the client is to be the individual seeking redress, rather than, say, the redress scheme. Legal advice may therefore, without doubt, be provided to individuals seeking redress under the scheme. However, I think that it is important to make clear the intention behind clause 8(1)(a). We want to ensure that patients going through the redress scheme can make a genuine, informed choice when presented with options. Clause 8(1)(a) will enable legal advice to be provided to patients, where appropriate, during the schemefor example, to assist with the joint instruction of medical experts. However, I confirm that the intentions behind this clause are to facilitate fact finding and resolution and, equally importantly, to ensure fairness within the system by better enabling patients to make an informed choice. Clause 8(1) provides the flexibility for the provision of services that may help to reach an agreement to settle. The advice provided to the individual remains the property of the individual and would not be disclosed to the scheme authority.
	Amendment No. 7 would remove the explicit power in clause 8(3) enabling the scheme to provide that free legal advice has to be supplied by a provider included in a list held by a specified person or body. As drafted, clause 8(3) enables the scheme to provide that free legal advice, whether provided when an offer is made or at an earlier stage, has to be supplied by a provider included in such a list. It is envisaged that the scheme may provide that the list of solicitors firms that will provide legal advice under the NHS redress scheme will be those firms that are authorised by the Legal Services Commission to undertake publicly funded work, and that have agreed to provide advice under the scheme.
	Any organisation undertaking clinical negligence work under an LSC contract must hold a specialist quality mark in clinical negligence. The LSC awards the quality mark to individual offices. To gain the mark, the firm or office must have a solicitor who is on either the Law Society or the Action against Medical Accidents panel to ensure the work undertaken will be under the supervision of an experienced individual solicitor. We intend that approved providers of legal advice under the redress scheme will be restricted to firms that have achieved the quality mark status in clinical negligence. Clause 8(3) seeks to guarantee that the legal advice offered under the scheme is of a suitable and high standard, and I therefore oppose the amendment.
	In a publicly funded scheme, it is appropriate that solicitors funded to provide services to patients meet a guaranteed, appropriate standard. It is also appropriate that the advice is provided by a solicitor's office with the appropriate level of specialist training. I therefore reject amendment No. 7.
	The Government amendments provide some clarification of issues raised in Committee, especially on the joint appointment of medical experts and the status of legal advice provided to individuals. The amendments strengthen the Bill further and I urge hon. Members to accept them.

John Baron: The purpose of our amendments is to restrict the role of lawyers, except where legal rights are affectedthat is, at the offer stage. The Minister has accepted that the policy underlying the Bill is to provide a genuine alternative to litigation. Under the redress scheme, offers may be made on the basis of the NHSLA's internal assessmentnot its determinationof liability.
	Legal rights are not determined but remain intact, as the person concerned can resort to litigation at any time. Accordingly, it is difficult to see why lawyers need to be involved before an offer is made or a settlement is considered, when legal rights may be waived as part of a compromise agreement.
	The Secretary of State agreed with that sentiment on Second Reading. She said:
	I am quite certain that lawyers will argue...that much more legal advice should be made available all the way through the process. If we do that, however, we might as well stick with the existing situation in which people seek legal advice and go to court.[ Official Report, 5 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 33.]
	However, the Government amendments show that the Government have changed their position. They now want to involve lawyers, in a misguided attempt to enhance the scheme's credibility. I believe that that will make the process more adversarial. Involving lawyers risks causing whoever is involved in the fact-finding investigation to clam up. We do not want lawyers asserting or defending legal rights, as that will import into the process considerations of fault and defensiveness, whereas we believe that the investigation needs to be open and transparent. The Government proposals are the worst of all worlds, and will add to precisely that blame culture that the Minister says that he wants to avoid.
	In addition, there is the question of cost. The more lawyers involved in the investigation, the greater will be the costto the scheme and to the NHS and at the expense of patient care. In other words, if more money is soaked up in lawyers' fees, less will be available for patient care.
	The NHSLA annual report for 2006 came out a couple of days ago and made reference to the problem. The Government may think that only the Opposition are concerned that ever higher costs will divert resources away from patient care, but the report states:
	The Authority remains concerned about the relatively high legal costs which are often incurred in clinical negligence claims, and which do not benefit either injured patients or the NHS.
	Yet the Government want to involve more lawyers earlier in the process.
	The added costs might be worth while if it could be shown clearly that they added value, but the evidence suggests that they would not. The objective measure of the performance of so-called specialist lawyers is worth considering. In a letter to a member of the public dated 7 November 2002, the Legal Services Commission stated that, since August 1999, only specialist lawyers had been able to start new cases on legal aid. In 2000-01, the overall success rate in clinical negligence cases was 23 per cent. for specialist lawyers, and 24 per cent. for non-specialist lawyers.
	According to a written answer to me on 17 January 2006, in the last year for which figures were available, the overall success rate for legally aided clinical negligence cases had remained at 23 per cent. The figures are revealing. First, they show that about five or six years ago, when ongoing legally aided clinical negligence cases had specialist and non-specialist lawyers, the performance of both categories of lawyers was roughly comparable. Secondly, even though legal aid was made available only to specialist lawyers in 1999, the figures show that there has been no improvement since then in excluding opportunistic and unsustainable claims.
	We feel that lawyers should be restricted to the offer stage. Involving lawyers would replicate the problems of the adversarial litigation system. It would add to the cost of the redress process and subvert its functions, with the focus on compensation rather than on explanation. In many cases, involving lawyers would be the worst of all worlds; it would import the bad aspects of the judicial processexpensive lawyers, protracted cases and complexitywithout the benefits of finality and independence. It would certainly add considerably to the cost of the schememoney that would be better spent on patient care

It being Five o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [5 June].
	 Amendment agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker  then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	 Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 5, line 1, leave out paragraph (a). [Mr. Baron.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 254.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendments made: No. 13, in page 5, line 1, leave out 'in connection with proceedings under the scheme'.
	No. 14, in page 5, line 2, at end insert
	'to individuals seeking redress under the scheme'.
	No. 15, in page 5, line 12, at end insert
	'(4) A scheme that makes provision for the provision of the services of medical experts must provide for such experts to be instructed jointly by the scheme authority and the individual seeking redress under the scheme.'. [Andy Burnham.]

Clause 10
	  
	Scheme members

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 5, line 29, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (2A),'.
	No. 17, in page 6, line 16, leave out paragraph (j).
	No. 18, in page 6, line 17, at end insert
	'(2A) A scheme must require a member of the scheme to prepare and publish an annual report about cases involving the member that are dealt with under the scheme and the lessons to be learnt from them.'. [Andy Burnham.]
	 Order for Third Reading read.

Andy Burnham: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am pleased to be able to send the Bill back to another place, and I hope that their lordships will give it their blessing. Although there remain some differences between ourselves and Opposition Members that we have discussed today, there is a good measure of consensus on the Bill. There is a belief that this is a good Bill that will change for the better the lives of patients who have been harmed during the course of their NHS health care. I am pleased with the Bill and firmly believe that it has benefited from the scrutiny that it has received. During its passage through this House, we have given it a thorough examination. The Government have listened and responded to points raised in debate, and we have amended the Bill accordingly.
	Importantly, following debate in another place, the Bill was amended to enable the scope of the redress scheme to be enlarged. The scheme may now extend to services over and above hospital services. That addressed concerns that the scheme would be incapable of adapting to the increasing diversity of NHS health care provision, as the NHS moves towards the greater provision of what have traditionally been secondary care services in primary care environments.
	Following debate in Committee, we accepted that redress will now ordinarily include not only an offer of compensation, an explanation and an apology, but the giving of a report on the action that has been or will be taken to prevent similar cases from arising. I say again that that is what our constituents overwhelmingly want when they come to us with complaints about their NHS treatment. They want to ensure that people in their locality do not go through a similar experience; they want things to change for the better. We have taken on board the fact that patients often want to know what measures have been or will be taken to ensure that the mistake does not happen again.
	We have also accepted that the scheme must now provide for an investigation report to be prepared and given to an individual on request. That was in response to the persuasive arguments that providing patients with investigation reports will better ensure an open and credible investigation. We believe that that will provide additional reassurance to individuals that their cases will be properly investigated, but of course if an individual believes that the investigation by the scheme member falls below the acceptable standard, the ombudsman may ultimately provide an independent review of any complaint.
	Furthermore, the scheme must now require members to publish an annual report about cases dealt with under the scheme and lessons to be learned. We have taken it on board that there should be a guarantee that annual reports on lessons to be learned will be prepared and published.
	Additionally, we have accepted the point, made eloquently today by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), that there should be enshrined in the Bill the principle of the desirability of resolution under the scheme. That is something to which members of the scheme must have regard in carrying out their duties under it. I am sure that the Simon amendment will have a positive effect in creating the open learning culture in our NHS that I believe Members in all parts of the House would like to see the Bill encourage. I am grateful to him for tabling it.
	We have clarified that the free legal advice that may be provided under the scheme will be provided to the individual seeking redress, and we have inserted a new provision to make it clear, that if the scheme provides for the services of medical experts, those experts will be jointly instructed by the scheme authority and the individual seeking redress.
	I firmly believe that these changes significantly improve the Bill and provide greater reassurance that the scheme established under the powers in the Bill will provide what patients want. As I have said, it is those people who are less articulate and less able to see a case through to the bitter end who may benefit the most from the scheme. In cases where harm has occurred, the NHS will take up the case, investigate it and offer an apology, an explanation and, if necessary, redress. That is clearly in the interests of patients and entirely consistent with the further reforms that the Government are introducing to create an NHS centred around the needs of the individual patient. The Bill will further strengthen the NHS in that regard.
	I thank hon. Members for their contributions today and in Committee. I was pleased to give the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) her first success in Parliament. It was a good Committee and, despite differences on the issue of independent investigation, all Members contributed positively and the Bill is better as a result. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington, who contributed constructively throughout the proceedings, and who has improved the Bill. I thank my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), who did so much work to prepare and introduce a Bill that is excellent in every respect.
	I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as well as our Chairmen in Committee and the excellent team of officials in the Department of Health who provided support throughout the Bill's passage. The scheme is excellent, and it will improve the national health service, so I commend it to the House.

John Baron: It is with mixed feelings that I rise to speak on Third Reading. We had hoped to support the Bill, which has the worthy aim of providing an alternative to going to court for NHS patients seeking redress, but despite some lively and learned debates, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, it is significantly weaker than the measure that was brought to the House from another place.
	We thank you for supervising our debates and for your customary patience and guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The principles underlying the Bill were at least tested and clarified during its passage through the Commons; I accept what the Minister said on that point, to a certain extent. I thank the Clerks for their advice on amendments and procedure, which was extremely helpful. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who served as Conservative Whip in Committee. He gave us the benefit of his legal training on a number of points, and I am grateful to him.
	The hon. Members for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), helped to ensure that our attempts to improve the Bill were pursued on cross-party lines. I am grateful for their support, which built on the amicable partnership established by noble Friends in another place. I, too, thank all Members for their contributions, both in the House and in Committee. I commend the Minister on guiding his first health Bill through the House, although trying to pin him down on some of the issues has been a game of cat and mouse. However, we can save that subject for another day.
	The overall objective of the Billto provide an alternative to going to court by creating a redress schemehas been widely welcomed. As we know, clinical negligence litigation is complex, costly and basically unfair. Most people do not qualify for legal aid, yet most cases are legal aid-funded. Most clinical negligence cases fail because legal aid is the fuel for unmeritorious claims. A scheme established under clause 1 could widen access to redress and offer patients what they say they want most: a proper and honest investigation into what went wrong, an explanation and, when appropriate, an apologythere is no difference between us on that. Under clause 3, an offer of compensation might be appropriate, but financial redress usually comes far down the list of patient priorities, as a number of Members have said.
	The Minister will know of my great disappointment with the Bill in its current form. I do not believe that the fact-finding stage of the investigation will inspire confidence in patients, because the investigation will not be independent. What is more, the objectivity of the fact-finding investigation is likely to be subverted by the involvement of lawyers under clause 8. Many features of the current disastrous system for dealing with clinical negligence have been imported into the redress scheme, and overall the Bill will not succeed in shifting the culture of the NHS towards one of greater openness and transparency that we all want.
	Clause 6 is the offending article, because it would allow the NHS to act as both judge and jury in investigations by the trusts. We have consistently argued that someone independent of the trust should conduct the investigation. Patients go to court because they want compensation and an independent investigation into what went wrong during their treatment. In seeking to provide an alternative to litigation, we should have regard to that basic need.
	Clause 6 is flawed because it does not address such a need. Instead, it allows for the investigation to be carried out by the trust under investigation. That will not inspire confidence in patients and without that confidence, the Bill is likely to fail. The Minister is aware of this complaint, which has been raised by many hon. Members and by many patient groups. However, he seems to be more concerned with reassuring NHS staff than he is with reassuring NHS patients. He has insisted that under the scheme an investigation of facts should not be independent of the trust. He has argued that trusts should have ownership of the process in order to bring about a cultural shift towards greater openness and transparency, but to most people that is entirely contradictory.
	After all, what could be more open and transparent than inviting an outsidersomebody independentin to consider all the facts? As we have heard, it is a basic principle of natural justice that no man or woman should be a judge in their own case. The same goes for investigation of cases of possible clinical negligence. Because patients understand this principle, our pragmatic complaint against the Bill is that clause 6 will not satisfy those seeking redress. It will not provide an independent exposition of the facts.
	The Opposition have similar reservations about clause 8 which, as amended, will import into the scheme the very feature of litigation that has fostered a culture of finger-pointing and blamethat is, lawyers seeking to assert or defend rights. Lawyers are costly but add limited value to a fact-finding investigation. They have no place in the scheme because individual rights are not being contested. Liability is assessed, rather than determined. They are likely to soak up resources originally intended for patient care, with every incentive to push claims beyond their merits.
	Lawyers need to be involved only where legal rights are being determinedthat is, in relation to an offer of settlement. Specialist legal representation under clause 8 will not guarantee the independence of the investigation. It will merely encourage confusion between fact-finding and fault-finding within the scheme. Accusations of blame will contaminate the objective consideration of facts. That will lead to a more closed and defensive culture among NHS staff. Important lessons will not be learned.
	Again, the Bill works against the stated aims of the Government. It contradicts the opinion expressed by the Secretary of State on Second Reading that lawyers should be kept out of the early stages of the investigation. It also flies in the face of the recommendation of Sir Liam Donaldson, who argued for a move away from the adversarial culture associated with tort.
	My deepest frustration with the Bill is that it adds almost nothing to what can be done already. It is unnecessary, in many respects. NHS trusts already have the power to investigate themselves where cases of possible clinical negligence are identified. The Litigation Authority already has the power to make an assessment of NHS liability and offer compensation accordingly. The Bill simply formalises these existing powers. One of the few new things that it provides is free legal advice. That sounds good, but it could be a costly mistake, as experience of legally aided clinical negligence litigation suggests.
	As amended, the Bill provides for a report on the investigation to be made available to patients, but it then goes on to establish reasons why the report can be withheld in some cases, although I appreciate the Minister's attempt at clarification on the matter. That was revealing, for it shows how the Government's priorities are focused on the interests of the NHS Litigation Authority, rather than on the needs of patients, in some respects.
	In conclusion, we were happy to vote for the Bill on Second Reading, but since then we believe the Government have greatly undermined its potential. The whole direction of travel has been towards a scheme which leaves the trust acting as judge and jury in its own case while simultaneously importing the bad features of clinical negligence litigation. Having damaged the Bill, the Government do not deserve our support. For this reason and with great disappointment, I shall ask my Conservative colleagues to vote against Third Reading.

Sandra Gidley: I rise to speak on Third Reading with mixed feelings, because I felt at many stages during the Bill's progress that there was a lot of genuine consensus based on honesty and openness, on trying to ensure that patients could have a means of redress, and on facilitating that in as many ways as possible. Unfortunately, we have reached a point where there is a fundamental difference between Members on either side of the House on how we achieve those ends.
	The Committee stage of the Bill was unusually short, which was a first for me. I thank the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) for his co-operation, the Committee Clerk for his forbearance, and the Chairs. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who supported me in Committee. I also thank the Minister. It is somewhat unusual to put forward arguments and find them genuinely listened to and accepted. I pay great tribute to him for that.

Steve Webb: Steady on.

Sandra Gidley: Well, I think that we are sometimes too quick to criticise and not to give credit where it is due. I am hoping to start a new trend, although I do not think that I will succeed. The amendments that the Minister accepted were welcome because they have strengthened what the patient can expect under the Bill.
	The Bill was better when it came from the other place, which is why we were happy to support it on Second Reading. Sadly, the principles of independent investigation have in effect been removed. It is a struggle to balance the importance of that against the importance of all the good things in the Bill. A big part of me does not want to vote against the Bill, because it is a step forward, but losing the fundamental principle of an independent investigation will lead patients to not have the faith in the Bill that they otherwise could and should. It is with some regret, but to underline the importance of the strength of feeling on the matter of independence, that Liberal Democrats will vote alongside the Conservatives.

Si�n Simon: I am conscious that the Whips want to get home for their tea, so I will resist the temptation to dwell on what Opposition Members have said about legal advice, save to say that the whole tone of their remarks was so ill-judged as to be irresponsible and dangerous, and stems from a fundamental lack of understanding of what the Bill is about and a failure to understand the subtleties and complexities of clinical negligence and surrounding issues.

John Baron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Si�n Simon: No. Hardly anybody gave way to me in Committee or this afternoon, so I will just make my brief remarks and sit down.
	I spoke more than once on Second Reading and in Committee about different ways in which the Bill could have been dealt with from the beginning and different ways in which it could have been improved throughout. Most fundamentally, if I had designed the Bill, I would not have based it on the rather limiting test of liability in tort, but tried to develop a more modern, flexible and patient-centred avoidability test. For me, that is the key remaining weakness, although there is no reason why such issues should not be considered in future. My hon. Friend the Minister said that the operation of the Bill and the scheme will be reviewed. I urge him to examine those matters in the future.
	On the whole, the scheme and the Bill are good. It could make a genuine difference to people's lives at times of sickness, and to their relations with the NHS when it lets them down and they try to deal with that. I am pleased with and proud of the way in which the Bill has developed and changed. I sincerely recommend it to patients and patient consumer organisations.
	My hon. Friend the Minister has provided a masterclass in listening government. He has trodden carefully and chosen wisely. He has done that with tolerance and good humour and won grudging plaudits from some Opposition Members. He has my wholehearted admiration and thanks. Until today, albeit on occasions, most Opposition Members had made a good fist of it, and my thanks and congratulations go to them.
	The Bill was basically good all along. It is now immeasurably better for having been through Parliament. One cannot say either of those things about many measures. Having been involved with a Bill that satisfies both criteria, we should count ourselves lucky and commend it to our constituents and concerned organisations.

Richard Taylor: I shall not keep the Whips from their tea for more than a few moments, but I cannot resist telling the Minister that he is in danger of making me change one of my after-dinner speeches. My limited experience of Standing Committees has been uniformly depressing and frustrating. When I served on a Committee a long time ago, a senior Member whispered in my ear that he had tabled 600 amendments and not one was accepted. Yet an amendment to the Bill has been accepted. That is absolutely brilliant and I commend the Minister for that. He will be known as a listening Minister, and I hope that that will not be perceived as a sign of weakness and that he will continue to listen and take points.
	Having said that, I still have two genuine worries. Sadly, I do not believe that we conveyed clearly what we meant by independence. I hope that the involvement of legal representation in the fact-finding part of the investigation will not increase the complexity of the process, make it adversarial or increase the stress levels for patients, relatives and staff. The medical profession abominate the involvement of the legal profession, as I am sure hon. Members realise.
	I hope that, in time, advantages will be perceived in aligning the redress scheme more closely with the NHS complaints procedure, as Making Amends suggested.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 160.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

EUROPEAN DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119 (9) (European Standing Committees),

Preliminary Draft Budget

That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum from HM Treasury dated 23rd May 2006 relating to the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for the financial year 2007; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community .[Jonathan Shaw.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 147.

Question accordingly agreed to.

HUMAN TISSUE

Ordered,
	That the Human Tissue Act 2004 (Ethical Approval, Exceptions from Licensing and Supply of Information about Transplants) Regulations 2006 (S.I., 2006, No. 1260) and the Code of Practice on Consent (Code 1) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. [Mr. Michael Foster.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Tuesday 18th July, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Edward Leigh relating to Public Accounts not later than Ten o'clock or three hours after their commencement, whichever is the later; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply. [Mr. Michael Foster.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 20th July, proceedings on the Motion for the adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to International Development may continue, though opposed, for three hours or until six o'clock, whichever is the later; and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of. [Mr. Michael Foster.]

PETITIONS

Three-tier Education System

Andrew Selous: I rise to present a petition signed by some 4,000 of my constituents, of whom roughly 1,000 are schoolchildren, to request the Government to ask Bedfordshire to keep the three-tier system of education, comprising lower, middle and upper schools.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of residents of South Bedfordshire.
	Declares that the overwhelming majority of local residents wish to preserve the three-tier system of lower, middle and upper schools in Bedfordshire.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to keep the three-tier school system in Bedfordshire.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Respect for Animals

Judy Mallaber: I rise to present the petition of Respect for Animals, a seal protection organisation, and UK citizens opposed to the brutal slaughter of seal pups by Canada. The petition is signed by J. MacManus and more than 31,000 other citizens, and will be followed by further petitions. It is dedicated today to Tony Banks, whose memorial has just taken place in the Robing Room.
	The petition declares:
	That the slaughter of nearly 1 million seals, almost all under three months of age, over the last three years by Canada is a cruel outrage. The Petitioners further declare that they are appalled by the cruelty of the hunt. They note that a team of independent veterinarians who observed the Canadian seal hunt in 2001 found that 42 per cent. of the seals examined were likely conscious when skinned; are concerned that the current level of killing is unsustainable for the harp seal population; and that trade data shows that thousands of seal skins were imported into the UK between 1995 and 2003. The Petitioners further declare that the US banned imports of all seal products in 1972 and that Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy currently have initiatives to ban such trade.
	The Petitioners therefore request that as a matter of urgency the House of Commons pass legislation to prohibit the import of all seal products into the UK.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

RUNAWAY CHILDREN

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Helen Southworth: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of protection for children who run away or go missing from home or care, especially as I have a ten-minute Bill, supported by many Members, which has not yet secured time for a Second Reading.
	The Children's Society, the National Missing Persons Helpline, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, ChildLine, Parents And Children Together, Railway Children, local charities such as Talk Don't Walk in my constituency, the children's lead of the Association of Directors of Social Services and the missing persons lead of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Metropolitan police and the Police National Missing Persons Bureau have all contributed to the Bill's preparation. The Bill's main purpose is to establish a simple co-ordinating mechanism to identify and implement best practice, monitor what is happening and make sure that it works. In particular, the Bill would place a duty on the Secretary of State to promote the establishment of a national strategy, safeguard runaway and missing children and provide for the collection and reporting of information about runaway and missing children. It is not about creating a bureaucracy; it is about putting someone in charge and making someone responsible.
	What is the current position? Research by the Children's Society indicates that an estimated 77,000 children and young people under the age of 16 run away for the first time every year. It also states that there are around 129,000 incidents of children running away overnight every year.
	Who are the children who run away? Anecdotal evidence suggests a range of circumstances in which children and young people choose to leave home or care. I have been given evidence about very vulnerable children out on their own with no one to help them. In the House, we do not know the nature of the problem or have the information. I asked how many children on the child protection register from each local authority area have been reported missing to the police, and received the reply that the information is not collected centrally. I asked how many children in local authority care were reported missing from care to the police in each local authority area, but the information is not collected centrally. I asked which local authority children's services have agreed joint protocols with their police authorities for the management of cases of children reported missing from home or care. Again, the information is not collected centrally.
	The Every Child Matters: Change for Children programme, is making a huge impact on the well-being of children in local communities. We must have a mechanism, however, to ensure that children who run away or go missing, and who have nowhere safe to go, have help that meets their needs where they are. Protection and services for young runaways must become a priority. Those children can become invisible, and we must not let that happen.
	The police have given me anonymous case histories, and I shall share just a few with the House to describe how hard life can be for some of our children. One is of a young boy living with his mother, stepfather and two older children. At home, his parents, who were heavy drinkers, neglected him, and his sisters bullied him. He was also the victim of bullying at school. He was frequently reported missing to the police, spending nights at the homes of his friends, riding buses or sleeping rough, often with other children who had run away. On two occasions, he presented himself to the local police station, saying that he did not want to go home. Eventually, he was placed in care in October 2003, when he was 13 years old. He has continued to go missing from his care placement, and 220 missing-person reports were recorded between October 2003 and June 2006. While missing, he has been a victim of crime on five separate occasions.
	In 1996, aged six, a young girl first came to the notice of police when her teacher discovered that her mother had assaulted her. During 2002 and 2003, aged 12 and 13, she was reported missing on numerous occasions, and 20 separate incidents were reported on police intelligence records. While missing, she was having relationships with older men who were exploiting her. On one occasion she was interviewed by police, and stated that she was having unprotected sex with her boyfriend with the intention of becoming pregnant. He was 25. She also stated that her boyfriend encouraged her to have sex with other men, in return for which she received favours such as alcohol, cigarettes or money. She was 12 years old at the time.
	The girl was placed in care, but continued to be reported missing on a regular basis. Her foster carer reported to police on one occasion that she was claiming to be carrying drugs from one place to another for dealers. On one occasion, she was found in the flat of a 45-year-old man to whom she was not related; also sleeping in the flat was a known prostitute. The girl was placed in a care home in another county, but has continued to be reported missing from there. Between August 2002 and September 2005, between the ages of 12 and 15, she made 12 allegations of serious crimes, including very serious crimes against the person.
	Another child first ran away from home at the age of 13. She was missing for five days, and it transpired that she had spent most of that time sleeping rough, sometimes in telephone boxes. She disclosed to the police that the reason for her running away had been sexual abuse by her mother's partner. She was placed in a local care home by social services as a temporary measure while police dealt with the allegation. She provided credible evidence of continuing sexual abuse, which had begun when she was 11 years old. Because she was aware of the strength of her mother's feelings for her partner, she never told her mother. Her mother's partner denied the allegations, and her mother refused to accept her daughter's word or to support her. It was decided that she should be placed with a foster carer. Unfortunately, that was in another county. She next came to notice in October 2005, by which time she had been placed with a different foster carer in yet another county. She had run away from foster care, and was found in London. It transpired that she had been engaged in prostitution while she was missing.
	Another child, 11 years old, is on the child protection register as a result of violence in the family home. His father is an alcoholic, and his mother has a drug problem. The parents are together intermittently, and the child has been caught in the middle of a volatile and violent situation for a number of years. He was placed in foster care. He is described as shy and introverted. He remained at school, but his foster carer lived outside the borough, so he had to make the long journey to school in a taxi every day. He is frightened of the dark.
	The child ran away from foster care, taking all his belongings. He was found the next day back with his parents, but because of the situation to which he had returned, he was taken into police protection and was debriefed by the police. He explained that he was frightened all the time, especially when coming home from school, and that he had been bullied at the foster carer's house. Apparently two older teenage boys were also in care at the address. They had been bullying him. He had been locking himself in his room each night, and going to school in the morning without any human contact as such. He was taken by social services back to the foster carer's house, but he promptly ran away again within an hour. He was found very quickly wandering nearby, and has now been placed in alternative care.
	Those are far from isolated cases. Although some young people find that running away can provide a relief from pressure, a large minority find themselves lonely, hungry and frightened. Children on the run are at high risk of abuse, and face both immediate and long-term dangers.
	Across the country, I have encountered some exceptional individuals and statutory and voluntary organisations. They are working incredibly hard to put things right. An example is the mountains into molehills project organised by Lancashire constabulary, who work with all the other key local stakeholders to establish effective advanced problem-solving measures. It is a beacon of best practice. The computerised missing persons case management system allows analysis of missing persons data, which make it possible for problem solving to intervene at an early stage. Lancashire found that of 6,200 missing persons investigations undertaken annually, more than 4,800 involved children under 18. Lancashire tracked children who had been missing more than twice and found 300 children who accounted for almost 3,200 of the missing persons investigations. The majority of those cases involved children in care. One had been the subject of 78 missing persons investigations in a single year.
	Following Lancashire's example, Leicester constabulary has recently carried out work with its key local partners, which revealed that of the 4,241 reports to the police of missing persons, 6 per cent. were reports about the same 10 young people. All were in local authority care, all were reported missing more than 10 times, and one individual had been reported missing more than 53 times during the year.
	It is significant that in the Met police, Lancashire and Leicestershire, very senior police officers, and people at director level in other stakeholder organisations, are taking a lead role. Someone is taking responsibility at the top of the organisations to get action. A common thread identifies a particularly vulnerable group of cross border children with serious social, domestic and behavioural difficulties. They are placed by the local authorities responsible for their care into private care homes in different areas of the country. For a minority of children who need to be placed away from home to protect them from particular circumstances, such placements are appropriate. All too often, however, children are placed inappropriately, without sufficient support and without liaison with local services.
	For children running away from local authority care, the current system is failing to meet their most basic needsa safe place to stay and someone safe to talk to. Children's services, police, the voluntary sector and health services have vital roles to play in ensuring that runaways are known about, found and their problems appropriately addressed. Making sure that the agencies know how to work together effectively is a key dynamic of the Every Child Matters: Change for Children reforms. The need for co-ordinated action was also a central feature of the recommendations made by the social exclusion unit in 2002, and the accompanying guidance issued by the Department of Health. But the co-ordinated action, backed up by effective information collection and sharing, clear strategies and leadership, is not happening everywhere.
	In October 2003, The Children's Society conducted a survey to see how local authorities were getting on with protocols and services for runaways. Some 91 of 150 local authorities replied, of which just under half had developed protocols for runaways. Only seven authorities could say that they had implemented all three of the recommendations. In 2005, a new survey showed that 89 local authorities have all recommendations in place, and a further 25 have committed to fulfilling the recommendations. That is too slow and piecemeal, and is letting vulnerable children down. Children are still running away from danger into danger, which is why we must have national leadership and national accountability to ensure that things happen.
	National voluntary organisations such as The Children's Society, the National Missing Persons Helpline, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Childline have been seeing the problems and taking action for years, providing places of refuge and someone to talk to. Local projects such as Talk Don't Walk in my constituency are having a real impact, but their funding is uncertaineven though for some children they are the only place the child trusts enough to turn to for help, like the 12-year-old boy who came to a refuge run by a charity, alleging physical abuse and that his dad locked him up at home. The refuge contacted children's services, who returned the boy home with social work support. A month later, he turned up barefooted at the refuge with a fractured arm, saying that his Dad had hit him, taken his shoes away and locked him up. He escaped and could only think of the refuge as a safe place to go. He has since been accommodated and remains accommodated.
	The National Missing Persons Helpline set up a runaways helpline two years ago that took 57,000 calls last yearfunded by the charity. It is an essential service for children such as the 12-year-old who ran away from home after an argument with her mum's new boyfriend. She did not know where to turn. There were two younger children at home and the mum did not realise that her daughter was missing. The runaways helpline connected her to a duty social worker for the first time.

Dan Norris: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Helen Southworth: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady is giving way, she must sit down.

Dan Norris: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Will she say a little more about the resourcing of that helpline? It does a wonderful job, but it has to raise all the money it needs to provide the service. Does she also share my disappointment that despite the high-profile comments about young people by the Leader of the Opposition recently, not one single Conservative Member is present for the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Speaker has made it clear many times that an Adjournment debate is a private debate for the Member who secures it. It is not appropriate to make party political references to the absence, or otherwise, of other hon. Members.

Helen Southworth: My hon. Friend supports my Bill, and knows that one of the things that we are calling for is a 24-hour helpline. That is essential, as children on the street need someone to talk to, whenever they feel the need to talk.
	For example, one 15-year-old girl ran away from a children's home. At 3 o'clock in the morning, she found herself with a group of older men, who threatened her. She was scared about repercussions and contacted the helpline. At her request, the helpline worker contacted the police, and talked to her until the police arrived at the telephone box to collect her.
	For such children, the runaways helpline is a lifeline, and the voluntary organisation Refuge the only safe place to be. Non-statutory services are often the key to engaging young runaways, gaining their trust and helping them to resolve the difficulties that cause them to leave home or care in the first place. We have to make sure that such organisations are part of a national strategy and that they continue to provide their services. That is vital, because runaway children depend on those services absolutely.
	There are children running away from the threat of physical and emotional danger who have nowhere to go and no one to talk to. Life can be unbearably hard for them, and that is not acceptable. They are our children, and we are letting them down, so we have to get our act together.
	We must provide national leadership and direction, and make sure that all children, in every part of the country, have someone to turn to when they need help.

Paul Burstow: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth) on securing this debate. Straight away, I want to acknowledge her efforts and hard work on behalf of young runaways. She has worked with all the organisations that she mentioned, and I am delighted to be a co-sponsor of the Bill to which she referred.
	We are talking not about bad children, but about children running away from bad situations. When they do that, they find themselves in even worse difficulties, in circumstances where they risk suffering harm, abuse or exploitation. The hon. Lady was right to say that we must get our act together at both local and national levels. I had the privilege recently of going to Chicago with The Children's Society, to look at how the US deals with the problem. It was a fascinating visit and we published a report, through the society, setting out some of lessons that we as a team learned.
	I first became interested in this issue while sitting in a church pew listening to a sermon. I was approached by my constituent Janet Little, who works locally for The Children's Society. She raised her concerns with me, and that led me to ask questions of my local authority and to submit a number of parliamentary questions on the subject. I am pleased to say that more than 400 hon. Members of all parties have signed early-day motion 393 supporting The Children's Society campaign to secure safety for young runaways and to provide a national network of facilities for them.
	When I was in Chicago, I was struck most by the fact that people there have been working on the problem for 30 or 40 years. Through federal funding, they have managed to establish a network of shelters that provide a basic minimuma first safe harbourfor young people. Ultimately, those shelters create a pathway that will lead those young people back home. We need a similar national network in this country.
	In Chicago, one shelter had more beds for young runaways than the total number of such beds currently available in this country. The scale of the problem here is different, but the need is still great. That is why I very much support what the hon. Lady has said today and I agree with the examples that she has given. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the debate and, if she has not already done so, I trust that she will look at the report published by The Children's Society about the trip to Chicago.
	In conclusion, we need a clear legal framework with long-term political backing, as there is in the United Stateswhich has stable and long-term core funding with a secure service infrastructure and a co-ordinated approach locally and nationally. That is what we need in the UK to create safe pathways home for those who run away.

Beverley Hughes: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth) on securing the debate, and I thank other Members for their contributions. I am well aware of my hon. Friend's keen interest in the issue over a long period, especially from recent meetings that she has held with me and my ministerial colleagues and departmental officials. I know that Members on both sides of the House share our deep concern for the well-being of all young people at risk, including runaways. I also pay tribute to all the local and voluntary organisations who work with vulnerable children and to national bodies such as The Children's Society, whose vigorous campaigning helps to keep these important issues high on the public agenda.
	In these debates, it is always frustrating to have only a relatively short time to do justice both to the issues that have been raised and the importance of the subject, but I shall do my best. First, I recognise that all vulnerable young people need specialist help when they need itwhether in respect of teenage pregnancy, drugs, alcohol, care or home life, or when they are running away or go missing.
	Thankfully, running away from home is not an issue for most children; they are well looked after, grow up in decent homes and receive good care from their parents or carers, but for some children life reaches a crisis point. For a small but significant number, running away seems at the time to be the answer to their problems. They do not do so lightly; it is usually a last resort and it is a cry for help of some sort.
	It is important to bear in mind that running away is not an end in itself; it is not a problem in its own right, but an indicator that other serious things are going wrong in the young person's life, as the cases described by my hon. Friend graphically illustrated. It is a symptom rather than a problem in its own right.
	Our information about young people who run away comes mainly from a social exclusion unit report and The Children's Society research, which tells us much about who runs away, where they go and why. The Children's Society estimates that about 100,000 young people run away every year; the SEU estimate is a little less, but the issue is not about numbers. Some marked differences emerged between runaways from birth-parent families and step-families and between boys and girls.
	My hon. Friend described some harrowing cases and a minority of runaways are certainly seriously at risk, but there are big differences between the young people who run away. The majority return overnight, 80 per cent. return with 48 hours and almost all return home within a week. Most of those who run away are not sleeping rough and without a place to go; the vast majorityabout 86 per cent.go to family or friends. That may not be an ideal solution, but at least they get on with their lives. However, as my hon. Friend illustrated, some do not and, what is worse, their problems may be magnified by other risks to their well-being: drugs, prostitution, exploitation of terrible kinds and, sometimes, life-threatening situations. Their main problem is not that they are running away; they are running away because they have other serious problems. I am determined that, in tackling those problems, we generate practical solutions for young people that address those multiple root causes.
	Two fundamental questions arise from the reports that I mentioned: first, how do we best prevent young people from running away in the first place, and secondly, how can we best ensure their safety and safe return and address the underlying problems? It is true that runaway young people need someone to talk to and somewhere to go, but crucially they also need help with the underlying problems that cause them to run away in the first place.
	My hon. Friend called for a national strategy, and I think that she meant a national strategy for runaways. In fact, I would say to her that we do have a national strategyit is called Every Child Matters. Since the social exclusion report, it is the Every Child Matters programme that is driving improvements, and the better and more comprehensive response from agencies for all young people, but particularly for those most vulnerable young people, including runaways. All the measures within that programme, including improved information sharing, a common assessment framework to assess young people's needs, and identifying a lead professional who can coordinate that support, are equally relevant to the needsoften multiple needsof young people who run away, and together they provide the sort of help that young runaways need in meeting some of those problems. I firmly believe that it is through the universal strands of Every Child Matters, not a separate strategy for runaways, that we shall best meet the needs of these young people.

Paul Burstow: I entirely agree with the point about the universal strands being the best way to deliver these services. The key question is, how do we ensure that commissioners can look beyond their own boundaries to commission services for their residents who have run away and are miles away, in another part of the country?

Beverley Hughes: I agree that although Every Child Matters is the relevant framework, there is more to be done in ensuring that all local authorities and all local organisations, including those working in the voluntary sector, have the issue of runaway young people on their radar screens as an issue that must be addressed in the context of their wider Every Child Matters work. At a recent meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South, we discussed with her and with The Children's Society the possibilities for furthering the work that we have been doing by updating existing guidance about best practice for local authorities, and discussing how else we can help local authorities to articulate, understand and address the needs of runaways, to spread best practice, and to ensure that the elements in their existing architecture, such as the children and young persons plan, include measures that they need to take locally to address the needs of runaway young people, whether it is their own young people running away or young people who have run away into their area from elsewhere.
	It is important before we finish to say something about lookedafter children. Many of the cases that my hon. Friend mentioned related to lookedafter children, the vast majority of whomabout 64 per cent.go into care because of abuse or neglect at home. It is really important that they receive high quality services, are kept safe and helped to reach their potential. I know and accept that children who are looked after by the local authority cause considerable concern, not only because some go missing, but because across the board their general outcomes are falling behind those of other children and young people. That is unacceptable. If children go into state care because their home care is inadequate, they should not emerge from that state care in a worse situation than they were in before. Their wellbeing should have been improved.
	For that reason the Government, across a number of Departments, are working very hard to identify the barriers to helping lookedafter children progress. We are working hard to ensure that young people who come into care, because of a multiplicity of really serious problems and often serious abuse and neglect, are actually helped, and not allowed to experience a lack of controlled care and a lack of careful dealing with their problems in the multiagency approach that we want.
	The guidance relating to children missing from home and care already requires local authorities to have a number of measures in place, including drawing up protocols with the police and measures to monitor missing-from-care incidents. In fact, I think that compliance is rather greater than my hon. Friend was able to inform us. None the less, these measures are not enough. That is why we are publishing a Green Paper later this year, hopefully in September, in which we want to make sure that we can introduce measures with local authorities that really stop looked-after children from drifting. We want to make sure that the kind of cases that we heard about today do not happen. In the context of the national strategy of Every Child Matters, it is, at the local level
	 The motion having been made at five minutes past Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at twenty-five minutes to Seven o'clock.